Robert Spencer Lies About Praising Angola’s “Ban on Islam”
Loonwatch.com, an excellent website keeping tabs on the Islamophobe industry, reported this week that the anti-Muslim blog FreePatriot.org published a story about a Muslim mob in Egypt that threw a 15-year-old Christian girl out a third-floor window. The FreePatriot story came with a photo of a woman falling out a window. Pretty enraging stuff, except that the story is completely made-up. The 2011 photo of a woman jumping from a fifth-floor window was shot in Shanghai.
Speaking of false reports, did you catch the one about how Angola had banned Islam and was planning to raze mosques in the country? Anti-Muslim bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer both welcomed the false news. At The Daily Beast, Jacob Mchangama writes how the bloggers’ praise of Angola’s purported Islam ban contradicts their self-styled images as defenders of free speech.
There is a lot more that plainly showcases the anti-freedom bona fides of Spencer and Geller and can easily be found detailed on Spencerwatch.
In the comments section Spencer showed up, addressing Sacirbey in his usual arrogant and ego-driven tone, Spencer decided he would lie,
“Fabricating stories to demonize people is nothing new” — and you should know, Omar Sacirbey, since you’re a master at it yourself. Here, you are retailing the falsehoods of other smear artists, but are you too lazy to do any fact-checking? In reality, I never praised the supposed ban on Islam in Angola, and actually condemned it: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/angola-denies-it-banned-islam-destroyed-mosques.html
You’re a disgrace to journalism.
Other commenters pointed out Spencer’s hypocrisy and called him out for being a despicable liar,
The hypocrite is YOU.
You did indeed welcome the possibility of the ban of Islam in Angola when news first broke of it, or at the very least did anything but condemn or even criticize it. From your own blog:
“This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. It will be interesting to see, if these reports turn out to be accurate, how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.” In any case, clearly this is a national security issue, with Islamic supremacists and jihadists wreaking havoc in Nigeria and spreading elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity. However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”
Let’s analyze your statement here:
1 – The alternative to a ban of Islam (“the other direction” as you put it) is to “to accommodate and appease Islam.” And since your entire blog rants and shills about the prevalence and evil of such accommodation and appeasement, one can easily conclude which of the two “options” in your binary world view you prefer.
2 – You scoffed at the possibility – that if the ban turns out to be true – “how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.”” You are clearly stating you would disagree with such opposition and in fact go further to mock those who would.
3 – You justify the possibility of the ban to be “clearly this is a national security issue”
4 – Incredibly, you argue that there is no way to distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims in Angola or anywhere in the world, essentially endorsing the ban as the final solution not only in Angola, but everywhere in the world: “There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity.”
5 – You put those who would seek to oppose the ban on human rights grounds in quotes (“human rights”) suggesting that you do NOT agree that this would be a human rights issue. You indicate that the consequence of reversing the ban on a human rights ground is: “the free reign of Jihadis.” Now, unless you are now changing your mind that “the free reign of Jihadis” is an undesirable thing, you are explicitly warning against the reversal of the ban.
The full quote: “However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”
In conclusion, the claim by Omar Sacirbey is 100% true.
You either have a painfully low IQ, are a shameless hypocrite, or suffer from severe amnesia when you come here to deride this fine journalist and accuse him of lying about your first response to the news of the ban when it is so clearly documented.
Moreover, if you are ashamed of your own views, why hold them, let alone parade them so proudly, in the first place? Time for a psychiatric evaluation.
It’s good to know that sane and well informed voices are willing to push back more and more against the hate brigades.