Top Menu

Is Robert Spencer Captain Oblivious? A Case Study in His Epic Double Standards

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.)


A loyal reader of our site (hat tip: Zam) pointed out to me that the 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.

, , , , , , , , ,

  • TYO

    “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.”

  • TYO

    “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.

    “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.

  • Pingback: References that Slay « Paradigm of Melange()

  • Les

    LOLOL @ the new pic. Awesome!

  • HGG,

    Awesome job! Haha. Spencer won’t be able to stand it.

Powered by Loon Watchers