Hat tip: HGG
I’m absolutely no fan of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unlike the neocon nutter Daniel Pipes who said that he was “rooting for Ahmadinejad,” I was praying for the opposition to win. But I must always speak the truth, and therefore object to (the fraudulent liar) Robert Spencer’s absolutely deliberate misquoting of the Iranian president. Spencer just published an article which he entitled as follows:
Ahmadinejad: “With God’s grace,” Israel “will be annihilated.”
In fact, Ahmadinejad did not say that. The proof is in the news article Spencer himself linked to, which claims that the Iranian president said: “With God’s grace, this [Israeli] regime will be annihilated.” A world of a difference. Isn’t it the neocons themselves who call for the toppling of regimes in the Arab and Muslim majority world? Isn’t it Spencer himself who calls for this, in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and even Iran? So it’s ok to call for it against Muslim regimes, but not “Judeo-Christian” Western ones?
This deliberate misquoting of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cannot be a mistake, because Robert Spencer–being the global expert of the Islamic world that he is–must be well aware of the now famous misquoting of Ahmadinejad in 2005; the Huffington Post reported:
As the Bush Administration beats the drums for another war of choice with another country that had nothing to do with 9/11, they are using another series of fabricated facts to indoctrinate the American people into thinking that Iran poses a serious threat to our security. At the core of these fabrications is the claim that on October 25, 2005, during a speech at the Ministry of Interior conference hall, the then newly-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remarked that “Israel must be wiped off the map.” As someone who was born in Tehran, lived there for seventeen years and is a native Farsi speaker, I have read the original transcripts of the speech in Farsi and want to inform you that Ahmadinejad never said “Israel must be wiped off the map,” but rather, his statement was grossly mistranslated and taken out of context, perhaps to help make a case for military action against Iran.
Let’s analyze what Ahmadinejad said. His exact words in Farsi were as follows: “Emam goft een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzegar mahv shavad.”
The correct translation of the statement is as follows: “Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times.”
And the word-to-word translation of the statement is as follows: Emam: Imam (Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution); Goft: said; Een: this; Rezhim-e eshghalgar: occupying regime; Qods: Jorusalem; Bayad: must; Az: from; Safheye: page of; Ruzegar: times; Mahv shaved: vanish.
Coming back to the recent quote reproduced by Spencer, Ahmadinejad obviously didn’t say for Israel to be annihilated. The fact that he specifically used the term regime indicates that he absolutely was not calling for that. This much you can tell just from reading the article that Spencer himself cited. As for the news article itself, I wonder how accurate their translation is; did he really call for the regime’s annihilation or its elimination (a much less loaded term)?
Anyways, moving beyond Robert Spencer’s deliberate misquoting (which shows how truly fraudulent this man is), there is an even more glaring issue here. Even if we pretend that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad called for the annihilation of Israel (which he didn’t), then what about the hate video that Robert Spencer just promoted on his website, where a Hindu extremist calls for the annihilation of Pakistan–to wipe it off the map? It’s almost the exact same words as Spencer attributes to Ahmedinejad! And this is in the translation that Spencer himself put up. It is truly unbelievable how oblivious Spencer is to his profound double standards. Or perhaps he is not oblivious at all (which is actually more likely), and just hopes that nobody important (aside from his loyal Islamophobic fan base) sees through his thin veneer of hate, bias, and double standards?
The brainwashed extremist girl declares:
…Soon our whole nation [of Hindustan] will rise. When our people rise up, it will be very difficult for you [Pakistanis]. It will be disastrous for every inch of your land…Kashmir will continue to exist, but not Pakistan. Who [amongst you] will voice such concerns? Who will show the braveness to use the atom bombs we have [against Pakistan]? Ask them [the Indian government] who is going to use the [atomic] weapons we have? Whom are they waiting for? Don’t worry what is happening now. History is where it is. We have the capacity to change the geography of the world [by wiping out Pakistan]…everything between [the Pakistani cities of] Karachi to Rawalpindi will become worthless…There won’t be any Pakistan! If you continue to believe this, I assure you that Pakistan won’t be present in the world for long.
Notice how she goes way past anything that Robert Spencer just criticized in Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s speech.
And one can’t help but notice the absurdity of Spencer saying:
There just isn’t much that’s peaceful about the Iranian regime, but they expect us to believe the nuclear program is.
Earth to Captain Oblivious: you just promoted a video of a Hindu extremist advocating the use of nuclear weapons to absolutely destroy Pakistan and wipe it off the map. You posted this only within the last few days, and we just published our article calling you out for this. Maybe you should at least have waited a few weeks, with the hope that people would begin to forget the hate speech posted on your very own site.
What an absolutely unbelievable hypocritical fraudster Robert Spencer is.
(It should be noted that we here at LoonWatch are in no way, shape, or form insinuating that the extremist girl represents Hindus. Clearly, she is part of a fringe minority of extremists. Furthermore, I advise the readers not to be harsh with her; I’ve read some people calling her some pretty nasty things. Calm down. She’s only sixteen years old and brainwashed. She’s probably never even seen a Pakistani in her life. She wasn’t even alive when those events she mentioned in her speech happened. It’s not her fault as much as those who indoctrinated her with this burning hatred. I hope that one day, with age and maturity, she recants. So go easy on her. The true villains are those like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller who are grown adults and yet promote her immature words.)
Update:
A loyal reader of our site (hat tip: Zam) pointed out to me that the JihadWatch.org article against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was written by Marisol, not Spencer. Nonetheless, it was posted on Spencer’s own site. And we must assume that he approves of the message, since he has neither repudiated nor recalled the article.
More importantly, he has condemned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s supposed statement multiple times in the past, such as here where Spencer laments: “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared at a conference in Tehran entitled ‘The World without Zionism’ that Israel should be destroyed.” Spencer entitles this article “Iran Calls for a New Holocaust.” In fact, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad simply reproduced the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, just as Spencer reproduced the words of the Hindu extremist.
Of course, neither Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollah he quoted actually called for the annihilation of Israel or a New Holocaust (see Huffington Post article I referred to earlier); on the other hand, both the Hindu extremist and Spencer endorsed a call for a nuclear holocaust in Pakistan. I’m sure Spencer condemns himself for that.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:39 am
Haha!! Captain Oblivious, we can start calling him that now…LOL!
And thanks for the article Danios
It’ll be interesting to see how the ‘phobic fanboys defend this.
March 13th, 2010 at 5:08 am
I read something similar regarding the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s speech before Obama’s election. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
Before, I was just convinced that the neocons wanted to start 1 final war before they were kicked out of power in order to secure an even bigger share of the world’s energy resources. Now I think both parties have set themselves on an irreversible path of war against Iran.
Although I think Iran probably does pose a certain level of threat to Israel, I doubt they would consider bombarding it with nuclear missiles,given that over 1 million Muslims live in Israel and the fallout from any nuclear bombardment would clearly pose a threat to the health of Palestinians and other surrounding Arab countries.
Earth to Captain Oblivious: Are the 3.2 million Hindus, 2.8 million Christians which live in Pakistan part of the global Jihad too? If this girl got her way, you do know they would also be at risk right? Not just those scary moooooslims.
March 13th, 2010 at 9:21 am
The contemptible Spencer is not only a shoddy scholar, but a shoddy mind as well. Good job in exposing the overgrown buffoon for what he is, again.
March 13th, 2010 at 9:29 am
From a Muslim point of view, I think Israel NEEDS to exist. Not it should, but needs to. It would most definitly be a great change for the world, but the way Israel has been acting recently is awful. Forget who Palestine belongs to, cuz now it belongs to Israel (though personally I think Palestine belongs to the Arabs). That doesn’t give them the right to blockade the natives’ land, or BULLDOZE their houses down, though I’m pretty sure that was an accident (sarcasm). And operation cast lead was awful. Hamas fired first and Israel retaliated, which is fine. But israel killed 1,400-something ppl, but only 330 of these ppl killed were combatants. The rest were civilians (hmmm). Even if u can’t press charges for purposefully killing civilians, than you can charge them for indiscriminate fire (firing a rocket into a village carelessly, with the result of missing your target and killing civilians instead).
March 13th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
iSherif:
Thanks!
Zam:
Thanks for your valuable input. I added an update to the article to reflect what you told me. Thanks. Glad to see you’re back to reading our site. We recently cited your comment responses as an example of the way we want our loyal readers to respond to the Islamophobes who comment here.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 13th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I notice that our articles are reproduced on multiple sites. I thank those people, but I do hope that they also update those with the updates I sometimes I add to my articles, such as the one above. If any of you are sentient human beings who do it manually, please give me input on this.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 14th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Danios, it think your text selections of that video leave out things that should be included. This seems to be a regional conflict. She is basically talking about not to fear the bomb blasts and acts of terrorism by Pakistan in India. To remember the country wars between them and how India succeeded in protecting itself. She is telling the audience to remember the bravery of an Indian MUSLIM, Abdul Hamid, who died fighting against Pakistani forces and destroyed a number of Pakistan’s American Patton tanks, “Company Quarter Master Havildar Abdul Hamid (July 1, 1933 – September 10, 1965) was a soldier in the 4 Grenadiers, Indian Army, who died in the Khem Karan sector during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, and was the posthumous recipient of the Republic of India’s highest military decoration, the Param Vir Chakra…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hamid_%28soldier%29 , how the Indian forces (which are multi religious) destroyed Pakistan’s American jets and sunk their American submarine Ghazi.
Think of that – she is telling people to be inspired by a fellow Indian, a soldier who died for India, one who was A MUSLIM. If she was such an extremists would she hold up a Muslim Indian soldier as an example and from whom to draw strength? How many Muslim extremists held up the bravery of a Hindu soldier to buck up his people? How many Christian extremists have held up a Muslim soldier as an example of the courage one should have against a country that has repeatedly for more than half a century attacked it? Or a Jewish extremist? You pointed out her saying Pakistan will not be spared, making it seem it is out of the blue, but you left out that she said that within the context of Pakistan CONTINUING to wage terrorism/war with India. Considering my country waged war against Iraq that did not attack us once, I think the Indians have shown considerable restraint in the light of Pakistan sponsored terrorism – see Christopher Hitchen’s articles on Paksitan in Slate.
I think that is belligerent talk for one so young, not okay with that and definately not okay with the use of nuclear weapons by any country, anywhere, ever again. But the text selections of her talk here make this seem anti-Muslim when it is much more about a long term regional conflict between India and Pakistan – multiple wars and many terrorist attacks like the November attacks recently. She is talking about a country’s self defense against another country that has repeatedly attacked it, and promote religious extremism to wage acts of terrorism.
FYI India can also be referred as “Hindustan” and that is not in the sense of religion but REGION, India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan
It seems that you are whipping up religion, even with your brief disclaimer that this girl represents Hindus, when this is about region.
March 14th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Calling for the annihilation of other countries is not the only thing Spencer and Ahmedinejad share. Robert Spencer also engages in genocide-denial, see: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/after-14-years-of-investigating-events-that-took-place-in-srebrenica-in-1995-i-can-attest-there-was.html
March 14th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
TYO:
She says “venomous religion” alluding to Islam (perhaps she is only referring to an extremist interpretation of it though?), but you do raise some good points and I don’t necessarily disagree with you; we’d have to know more about her to issue a judgment. She could just be anti-Pakistani, not anti-Muslim. Either way, we are just debating one form of bigotry over another. The fact is that she advocates the annihilation of an entire country, Pakistan, just as Spencer claims that the Iranian president wants to annihilate Israel. So the point of the article still stands, and your input is valuable but not relevant to the core of my argument.
I do, however, take great offense to your accusation of “it seems that you are whipping up religion.” I am extremely consistent when it comes to showing tolerance towards all religions. There are disclaimers that are meant to cover one’s ass, and others which are sincere in nature and meant to convince the listener. (The difference between Bush’s speeches mentioning Islam and Obama’s.) Mine was clearly the latter, because I HONESTLY do not think that Hindus are a violent/extremist/[insert any negative word here] people, and anyone who even thinks that is a bigot in my mind–one who should be opposed wholeheartedly.
Mahmoud: Thanks for your post!
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Look the overall point of your article about Spencer being hypocritical is not in question.
To me it sounded within the context of Pakistan-India wars, bomb blasts and acts of terrorism sponsored by Pakistan she is referring to Islamic extremists that Pakistan has been feeding and using as proxy military force against India, and by the way Afghanistan. Read the books “Taliban” and “Ghost Wars.” She seems to be condemning Pakistan for hatred within them, and for “indoctrinating with venomous religion, fear and greed you are training innocents to wage war against us, openly training, providing weapons, and roaming like devil. The world has come to recognize that this is all because of Pakistan.” No, I do not think the “venomous religion” she is saying the Pakistan is indoctrinating innocents with is Islam in general, but the extremism of the fanatical groups that sent young men like those who committed mass murder in Mumbai not that long ago. That religion that those 11 LeT guys, and terrorsts like them, carried was indeed a venomous religion. I think Hitchen’s Slate article is more a related article to what that girl is talking about than either Spencer’s or your site: Pakistan Is the Problem http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/
I felt you were whipping up religion bc of the narrow selection of text of the girls talk that you posted, which made it more like it was about anti-Islam, than about a girl who lives in a country that has experienced numerous terrorists attacks and wars from their neighboring country who uses fanatical jihadists as its proxy military force, and a girl who just telling her people be strong don’t give up hope. The only person she held up in honor specifically by name and asked the audience to remember his bravery was an Indian soldier who died in war protecting his homeland India from Pakistan, and that one person she mentioned by name was a Muslim, Abdul Hamid.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
TYO:
I understand why you could have thought that I was “whipping up religion”, but now that I have conceded the point so easily to you (based on your convincing argument), do you really think that I am “whipping up religion?” I see what you are saying, and it’s very valuable input and I thank you for it. In retrospect, I realize that I watched the video with the lenses that Robert Spencer himself provided. He is the one who tried making it about religion, and now I realize I shouldn’t have been so uncritical of this. I should have seen what you did.
But I wasn’t trying to “whip up religion.” Spencer was, and I uncritically accepted this. And I’m at fault for that. Yet, this is different than trying to “whip up religion,” something which I am the last person on earth to intend to do.
As for Pakistan being “THE problem,” I don’t really agree with that simplistic conclusion. (My own analysis is that Pakistan is unable to control its terrorist problem more out of ineptitude than collusion.) But I have conceded that you may have a very strong point that she may just be anti-Pakistani, not anti-Muslim.
Again, your input is valued, and you’ve been bringing up really good points recently. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 14th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
I can accept that you say you were uncritical and not meaning to whip up religion. Okay. You are reasonable with the points I brought up and I appreciate that.
That was the title of Hitchen’s article “Pakistan is the Problem,” not my wording. See link. The two books I mentioned are good for those who are interested in understanding what happened in that region. I don’t see it as ineptitude. No. Much deeper relationship. The NY Times also have articles on Pakistan’s relationship with terrorists “The idea that Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies could simultaneously be aiding the Taliban and like-minded militants while taking money from the United States is not as far-fetched as it may seem.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
March 14th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
TYO:
“I can accept that you say you were uncritical and not meaning to whip up religion. Okay. You are reasonable with the points I brought up and I appreciate that.”
Thanks. I appreciate it.
About the Pakistan thing, I understand it wasn’t your wording. However, I disagree with those whom you quoted as saying “Pakistan is the problem.” What is more likely is that there might be certain elements in the intelligence services which had ties, but what is known for certain is that the government itself is in a civil war with the Taliban and their ilk. More Pakistani soldiers have died against these extremists than American soldiers.
But I think that blaming Pakistan does do wonders for those who wish to establish an adversarial relationship with yet another Muslim majority country. Furthermore, it once again puts the onus on others, instead of owning up to the possibility that “the United States is [part of] the problem.” I added “part of” since I dislike such categorical statements, as if there is only one problem. But relatively, our own country (the U.S.) has had a profound role to play, and it’s about time we start living up to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, who advocated non-interventionism.
Anyways, this is a longer subject, and a tangent, so I’d love it if we not go back and forth on this. I understand that there are other views; I just don’t think this is a place to discuss it.
Once again, thanks.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 14th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
@TYO:I appreciate your unbiased response to Danios who seams to be a typical Muslim with its roots in Pakistan.It is dangerous and foolish to ever trust a Muslim.Danios is anti-Jewish,anti-Christian and a disloyal American.He/She does not does not expose her cover.I think she is an AMERICAN TALIBAN,who should never be trusted.She has got a platform to spit her venom.It is very typical of Muslims,who always accuse others but can not see their own face in the mirror of truth.Danios could be working as an enemy agent against America.She hides her face and identity like a Taliban instead of coming in open.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:22 am
Jack: I did not approve your comment, because it is too good a tip and deserves another article altogether. You are officially the LoonWatcher of the Week. Thanks a lot. Great sleuthing.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:57 am
TYO:
Even though your comments made sense based on the limited information we had, further information has come to light which decisively proves that you are wrong. Please stay tuned for the next article, which will elaborate. But I don’t mean to say this as in “nanner nanner nanner.” I admit that what you said made sense given the limited info we had.
Robert Spencer:
Oh man, you are going to love the next article. Haha
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 15th, 2010 at 6:40 am
Milad, I do not know what Danios’s religion is and don’t care. I don’t think he or she is an American taliban or a disloyal American. I am interested in information that is accurate and helpful. That is all. I am not on anyone’s side. Like I said to Danios somewhere else, this us v them attitude is not helpful. I prefer a neutral site that doesn’t make topics personal, and neither this site or Spencer’s site is that. I do think there are other comments to articles on this site that say some pretty hateful things, and some to me can sound anti-Semitic, but hateful comments overall come from a diverse group of people here, not people from one side or another.
Danios, the complexities of that region would be a whole other discussion, which I would rather read from academic sites and books. It only came up in bits here since the clip that you provided was about the regional conflict. I learned a lot from read the books I mentioned. No one country is all to blame for the current situation, no one is saying that, but I do think you do not hold Pakistan to the same standards of responsibility as you do America. That doesn’t help Muslims anymore than non-Muslims, including the Pakistani soldiers killed by the Taliban that members of their own government say they helped create (see the NYT link). But more discussion about the region is not best done here.
Danios, I get that you don’t mean to be “nanner nanner nanner,” and I would be interested in the article. I do hope you review whatever new material you have with care and within context, and be aware of your feelings about Spencer possibly affecting how you see it like you said earlier.I do wonder is your article about proving someone wrong, or sharing more information providing better information? One would be adversarial (us v. them), the other constructive for a civil discussion among different people. I think the situation in South Asia is complex and sometimes wonder if further discussion of that clip is going to pull us into something that is too big for this one site.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Ahmadinejad no doubt is a revolting individual who has made anti-Semitic and holocaust denial statements, for that he cannot be forgiven but it is equally true that he hasn’t called for the annihilation of Israel, but of the regime. Either way the hypocrisy of the Geller-Spencer axis is too clear, except it seems to Spencer.
By the way, Hilarious pick, someone has to photoshop Spencer’s mug on the head.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:24 am
TYO:
Prima facie there is cause for concern with what this girl has said or rather alleged to have said.
On another one thread one commentor made an allegation that the girl in this video was making threats not only towards Muslims but Christians also. You will appreciate that the bulk of people on this site do not speak her language. So can we have a word for word transcipt that is agreed upon – that shouldnt be too hard and should clear it up.
Danios post was not whipping a religious frenzy against Hindus. It appeared to me that you are attempting to paint ALL hindus as the peace loving best friends of everybody else and we know this is not the case.
Just like every other race, religion, ethnic origin there are SOME bigots. Just as there are some Muslim bigots and Christian bigots there are some Hindu bigots – Events like the massacre of Indian Christians in Orissa by Hindus clearly shows there are bigots among Hindus.
“Hindustan” from your own wiki source means land of the Hindus. So why is this girl calling it the “land of the Hindus” and not “India” ? – so as I started, prima facie, there is cause for concern with what this girl has said or alleged to have said.
This is not an us versus them – bigotry is wrong in every form.
Regards
March 15th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
“Prima facie there is cause for concern with what this girl has said or rather alleged to have said.”
Danny (not Danios), I think that was the whole point of the discussion btw Danios and me. I don’t speak her language either. Danios and I relied on the English subtitles provided in the video. From what I can gather here it doesn’t appear that Spencer et al went beyond the translation provided in the video either.
“Danios post was not whipping a religious frenzy against Hindus.”
My conversation with Danios has moved passed that to something we both seem to agree on. My impression is that he understands why it seemed that way to me, and I understand he did not mean it that way.
“It appeared to me that you are attempting to paint ALL hindus as the peace loving best friends of everybody else and we know this is not the case.”
I disagree. The translated text of that clip did not support either Spencer et al and Danios that this was anti-Islam. The English text provided in the clip which they both seemed to rely on, showed this to be about a regional conflict. That was my point. I said nothing on the lines that ALL Hindus were peace loving. The discussion was on the video clip, and not on all Hindus are this or that. That is your extrapolation not mine.
“Just like every other race, religion, ethnic origin there are SOME bigots. Just as there are some Muslim bigots and Christian bigots there are some Hindu bigots”
No duh. Again I did not say there were no Hindu bigots. You are countering a point that I did not even make.
““Hindustan” from your own wiki source means land of the Hindus. So why is this girl calling it the “land of the Hindus” and not “India” ? ”
Ask her. But the point here is that the country can be called India, Hindustan, or Bharat interchangeably. A person from Hindustan/Bharat/India can be of any religion. Wikipedia is a good place to start looking up things, though by all means no end all be all. I did that a couple times on this site when I wanted to learn more about something that caught my eye.
See here wiki “Names of India”: “The name India (भारत) may refer to either the region of Greater India (the Indian subcontinent), or to the contemporary Republic of India contained therein. The term is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC). The term appears in Old English in the 9th century, and again in Modern English since the 17th century.
The Republic of India has three principal short names, in both official and popular English usage, each of which is historically significant. All three originally designated a single entity comprising all the modern nations of the Indian subcontinent. These names are India, Bharat and Hindustan. The first Article of the Constitution of India states that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states.” Thus, India and Bharat are equally official short names for the Republic of India, while “Hindustan” is still widely used as an alternative name when Indians speak amongst themselves. “Hindustan” is also used in historical contexts (especially British India). Indians commonly refer to their country as Bharat, Hindustan or India depending on the context and language of conversation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India
Furthermore, the etymology of “Hindustan” shows its origins from outside India. That is originally what Persians called people living in that region. From that “Names of India” page: “India was called Hindustan in Persian although the term Hind is in current use. al-Hind الهند is the term in the Arabic language (e.g. in the 11th century Tarikh Al-Hind “history of India”). It also occurs intermittently in usage within India, such as in the phrase Jai Hind.
The terms Hind and Hindustān were current in Persian and Arabic from the 11th century Islamic conquests: the rulers in the Sultanate and Mughal periods called their Indian dominion, centred around Delhi, Hindustan. -stan is a Persian suffix meaning “home of/place of”.”
My guess is the better English literal translation of “Hindustan” is Land of Indians.
March 16th, 2010 at 6:41 am
TYO:
I have had a work colleague (a sikh who does speak the lingo) look at this video and I am reliably assured IT IS just an anti Pakistani diatribe.
You said:
“if she was such an extremists (sic) would she hold up a Muslim Indian soldier as an example and from whom to draw strength? How many Muslim extremists held up the bravery of a Hindu soldier to buck up his people? How many Christian extremists have held up a Muslim soldier as an example of the courage one should have against a country that has repeatedly for more than half a century attacked it? Or a Jewish extremist? You pointed out her saying Pakistan will not be spared, making it seem it is out of the blue, but you left out that she said that within the context of Pakistan CONTINUING to wage terrorism/war with India.”
Perhaps I did read things in to your post that weren’t there but on the basis of your quoted statement below, it wasnt an unreasonable conclusion to draw. You post looks distinctly similar to the often seen thinly disguised nonsense trotted out by many anti-islam posters who use Muslim/Arab/Pakistan interchangeably. Just have a look at any number of public forums on the subject. You have refuted this and therefore please accept my apologies.
I disagree with your analysis, in my mind she cleary is an extremist; a nationalistic extremist rather than a religious extremist. How else could you describe someone who wishes to obliterate another country (my paraphrasing) regardless of loss of huge numbers of innocent lives etc etc.
As for the point about Hindustan, you are quite correct. Its unfortunate that extremists taint things by adopting or associating with them such as here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/25/india-hindu-ramadan-bharatiya-janata
You will note the use of “Bharat” or “Bharatiya” by these clowns.
Regards
March 16th, 2010 at 6:43 am
Sorry that should be “quoted statement above” – Got sidetracked whilst looking at some work!
March 16th, 2010 at 9:26 am
For those that have stumbled upon this website, please take time to do research on these ‘loony bloggers’. This website points our their double standards in a very humourous way, but a simple read of the loony bloggers websites will easily show you the same. Keep up the good work Loonwatch.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
“By the way, Hilarious pick, someone has to photoshop Spencer’s mug on the head.”
Because it needed to be done.
http://i42.tinypic.com/14bjqld.jpg
March 17th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
HGG,
Awesome job! Haha. Spencer won’t be able to stand it.
March 17th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
LOLOL @ the new pic. Awesome!
May 2nd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
“I disagree with your analysis, in my mind she cleary (sic) is an extremist; a nationalistic extremist rather than a religious extremist. How else could you describe someone who wishes to obliterate another country (my paraphrasing) regardless of loss of huge numbers of innocent lives etc etc. ”
Actually it seems you do agree with me that she is not a religious extremist, which is what our discussion was about. As you said your Sikh friend who speaks the lingo confirmed that video was about Pakistan. I think we do agree that no nuclear weapons should be used upon another country ever again. I would like to see a nuclear free world. She should not have gone down that road. However,her speech overall seems pretty defensive and not without historical reason. I ended up having to look up online a lot of the names event and things she referred to to get what she was talking about. India had been attacked many times by Pakistan. Without this would she be calling upon the strength of those like the decorated Muslim Indian soldier of a previous war with Pakistan, and reminding them her audience about surviving past attacks? Somehow I doubt it. She should not be talking nukes, but self defense against another country that has actually attacked you repeatedly over decades is not the same to me as nationalistic extremism. She wasn’t even saying in that video India go attack Pakistan now. If Pakistan attacks again, then this. There is nothing extreme about self defense against actual threats to a country. I am sorry, I do not agree with your assessment on this. But an amicable discussion does not have to mean we agree on everything as the outcome. Plus also she is young, and I’ve expressed to you my feeling about labeling people. It is wrong. I feel this even more so about a young person. Labeling a person is not conducive to open discussion. It makes people less likely to listen because you’ve made it personal. If what you want is better understanding then focus on sharing information so people can make better informed decisions. The talk about Nukes was wrong but it struck me as desperate talk, like a people under siege and wanting the siege to never happen again if they are actually attacked again. What they (and everyone else too) need to know is that nukes should never be used. And that it does not have to even come to war. There are still many ways to maintain the safety of a country, which is what she seems to need to be made felt – safe from another actual attack from a neighboring country.
Sting:
“In Europe and America, there’s a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don’t subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer’s deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There’s no such thing as a winnable war
It’s a lie that we don’t believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don’t subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too…”
If we in the US and Russia no longer live with this fear from each other, then I think there surely is hope for South Asia.
Anyway, I think we’ve dissected this video quite a bit.
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
“As for the point about Hindustan, you are quite correct. Its unfortunate that extremists taint things by adopting or associating with them such as here”
People don’t know that Hindustan essentially means land of Indians – not religion – because they don’t bother to look things up like I did when I saw the video. It has nothing to do with extremists tainting this. People would mix this up even if there were no extremists in any religion doing anything. It is more simple thought process: Hindu = religion, Hindustan therefore must mean religious Hindu state ala Islamic state (Islamustan) or Chrsitian state (Christustan). But Hindustan is about region, not religion, a people, Indian. And the origins of the word Hindu are Persian. Overtime, in addition to being the word for Indian, it became associated with the major religion Indians practiced. This is why with videos of other cultures, countries and in other languages people need to do more research before jumping to conclusions. Like I said earlier I had to look up the names and events and so on mentioned in the video to really understand what she was talking about. (FYI – if you look it up online too you will also see the word “Hindu” used like “Hindustani” music or “Hindustani” poets and poetry (which has a number of Indian Muslim poets), which in this context of the arts also means region or people “Indian.”