Robert Spencer Opposes Egyptian Democracy, Smears Obama

Robert Spencer cannot stand that democracy is at the doorstep of the Arab world. In his latest hit piece, Spencer follows the lead of Frank Gaffney’s paranoid fearmongering by greatly exaggerating the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamist organization:

Game over: Barack Obama has endorsed a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new, post-Mubarak government for Egypt.

Game over! The end is neigh! The sky is falling! Why? Because President Obama’s spokesperson Robert Gibbs said that a post-Mubarak Egyptian ruling group “has to include a whole host of important non-secular actors that give Egypt a strong chance to continue to be [a] stable and reliable partner.” In other words, the Obama administration would no longer like to continue the undemocratic policies of Hosni Mubarak that outlawed peaceful democratic opposition to his pro-torture regime.

This is the nature of democracy. Everyone should be allowed to participate peacefully in a free and fair election, even candidates or parties we disagree with. For the record, the Muslim Brotherhood has officially and consistently renounced terrorismand embraced democracy. However, Islamophobes like Spencer have always been very selective and self-serving in their advocacy of freedom.

Nevertheless, Mohamed Elbaradei, the noble-prize winning nuclear watchdog and a possible key leader in the new interim government, completely rejects the argumentsof those who exploit fears of the Brotherhood to stifle Egyptian democracy:

ElBaradei himself says he is willing to work with the Muslim Brotherhood, denying that they want to replicate Khomeini’s Iran.

“The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian model, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt,” he told CNN.

“I have been reaching out to them. We need to include them. They are part of the Egyptian society, as much as the Marxist party here,” he said.

He rejected the idea that Islamic fundamentalists are set to undermine Egypt.

“This is a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime — that it’s either us, the ruthless dictators, or… the al Qaeda types,” he said.

In reality, Obama is simply putting America’s democratic rhetoric into practice. The Muslim Brotherhood has a right to peacefully participate in Egypt’s new political landscape, even if you strongly disagree with their platform. Let the voters decide.That’s democracy!

However, even if the Brotherhood is the “prototypical Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia group of the modern age,” rather than a conservative religious group, as Spencer claims, the reality is that the organization is simply too weak to overtake the secular opposition.

Analyst Abulhimal is convinced Egyptians would not let the Muslim Brotherhood seize power — not least because the military would stand in its way.

“Neither the people nor the secular leaders would allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take it, and more importantly the army would never allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take it,” he said. “If the army said, ‘We would support the people in the street and we would have a deal with President Mubarak to have an orderly transition,’ as the Americans said yesterday — this would definitely not include the Muslim Brotherhood.”

A similar sentiment is repeated in Justin Elliot’s excellent interview at Salonwith Nathan Brown, a political science professor at George Washington University and director of its Institute for Middle East Studies:

We’ve got a big headache in Egypt. The regime in its current form is toast. Our regional policy has been based on a very close working relationship with the Egyptian government since 1974, so we’ve got fundamental rethinking to do. The Brotherhood is part of that headache. It’s not the biggest part. Is there cause for concern? Yes. Is there cause for fearful reaction? Absolutely not.

So, on both theoretical and practical grounds, Spencer has misrepresented the Islamist Brotherhood boogeyman to quietly push for the dictator’s victory in Egypt. Anshel Pfeffer of Haaretz calls it like it is:

The late Arab-American scholar Edward Said appears to have been right. We’re all suffering from Orientalism, not to say racism, if the sight of an entire people throwing off the yoke of tyranny and courageously demanding free elections fills us with fear rather than uplifting us, just because they’re Arabs…

People are scaring us with talk of an Islamist takeover of our big neighbor. The Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play an important role in any political democratic structure that emerges in Egypt, and that has to be dealt with. But then, we also have religious fundamentalists in the [Israeli] government. That is the price of a parliamentary democracy. And the previous U.S. administration was intimately linked to fundamentalists, but that’s okay too, because evangelical Christians love Israel.

Of course, Spencer’s double standards concerning democracy and the presence of fundamentalists in government abound (Jewish/Christian fundamentalists good, Muslim fundamentalists bad). What about the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel? This is a legitimate concern, but it appears the worst case scenario is avoidable. Pfeffer continues:

Hundred of Egyptians who were asked about that [peace treaty] this week on the streets of Cairo said that they support continued diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt. Even among supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, it was difficult to find someone calling for the Israeli Embassy to get out of the country, though there were a few.

It is clear that democracy is on the march in Egypt and the Arab world, despite armies of fake democrats like Spencer who feed us specious arguments about why unelected dictators who torture are better for America’s security than a free and fair Egypt. Ultimately, whatever happens will determine what the future holds not only for Egypt, but for America and the world.

At this moment America has an important decision. As Dr. Maher Hathout expressed it in the L.A. Times:

The United States today has a clear choice. It can stand with the people or with the dictator.

58 thoughts on “Robert Spencer Opposes Egyptian Democracy, Smears Obama

  1. I get the sense that Spencer wants to see and is hoping for a ‘theocracy’ in Egypt…this could only help create more fear and sell more books.

    • “This is a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime — that it’s either us, the ruthless dictators, or… the al Qaeda types,”

      Like Nobel Prize winner El Baradei has said, this was all part of Mubarak’s propaganda — that his dictatorship is justified because the alternative- fundamentalists – are far worse.

      But there is a third way. Democracy.

      • Indeed. Democracy can be fully compatible with the ‘moderate’ types – Islamic Action Front of Algeria, Hamas, etc., etc.

        • Still peddling the “dictatorship or theocracy” myth, I see, and, not surprisingly, without any actual facts and evidence to back it up with (as usual).

      • You think that Hamas is ‘moderate’?

        Why not list the names of the hundreds of truly democratic parties throughout the Muslim world.

      • A similar myth was used in Apartheid South Africa’s propaganda: “it’s either us the white supremacists, or … the Communists”,

  2. Rob, are you referring to the “stolen generation”. Ah, that myth!

    Or are you referring to the hundreds of children currently being abused by their family members in aboriginal communities?

    • Great. Mark is a genocide denier. That must be why your government made an apology to the stolen generation.

      Watch this video, but turn off the sound since im sure you that the didgeridoo

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7eubc-Yk3M

      “Or are you referring to the hundreds of children currently being abused by their family members in aboriginal communities?”

      Ah, so they abused their kids to the point of extinction. Right. This kind of thought process is pretty much in line with other genocide deniers.

    • Your comments disgust me Marty.

      Kevin Rudd as then Australian Prime Minister – like him or not – admitted that this tragedy occurred and apologised to indigenous Australians on behalf of the nation. To become an ostrich and put your head in the sand when the facts on the ground clearly speak for themselves does nothing but enhance your reputation as a genocide denier and bigot.

      • The dispute is not whether children were taken away from their parents but the reason they were taken away was not racial but for their own safety. It is still happening today but authorities are powerless to take children away from abusive family because of stolen generation label.

        If you saw the Oprah special, there was an aboriginal/indigenous community spokesperson who told Oprah that they were not even citizens until 1968. Again, this is wrong.

        In 1967 the constitutional referendum on Aborigines was easily carried. The Yes vote was nearly 90 per cent, by far the highest ever for constitutional change. Many people think that Aborigines became citizens and acquired the vote as a result of this refer- endum. They did not. For most Aborigines those changes had already happened.
        But the referendum stood for much more than the changes it made to the constitution. Aboriginal people were looking to the Australian people to vote Yes to show that after years of cruelty and discrimination they were now fully accepted in the nation and were truly to be equal citizens. The Australian people did not let them down. Later, when Aborigines asked to be treated differently because they were Aborigines, the Australian people were not so ready to agree.

  3. Kevin Rudd as then Australian Prime Minister – like him or not – admitted that this tragedy occurred and apologised to indigenous Australians on behalf of the nation.

    And they’ve done nothing ever since. Children are still being abused in these communities. One girl had been repeatedly raped by several of her cousins. Nothing was done. Words mean nothing without action.

    • Nice to see Marty’s settler mentality on display…

      Where there is Islamophobia, racism is never far behind.

      Tell me this, do you honestly think it is appropriate to steal children from people because you don’t trust the way they raise the children? And the same problem is seen here, a handful of cases of child abuse cannot be used to justify this disgusting behaviour against the whole race, the disgusting behaviour which you said was a “myth”.

      By the way, the children who you “rescued” by stealing them from their parents are really grateful for your help. So grateful that they’re suing you.

      • The “same problem” being you Islamophobes’ tendency to blame a whole group of people for the actions of some people. Even if the majority of children were abused, would it not have been better for the government to tackle the abuse rather than ripping the children out of their culture.

    • Ahh… here Marty goes again, with his unending campaign to socialize the blame on entire groups of people when he isn’t a member.

    • “Why not compare the ‘settler’ mentality to the mentality in Egypt where it’s ok in the minds of some to kill Copts?”

      Yes, it’s okay in the minds of some. Finally you get the point of all of this. Why blame all Muslims?

      Should I blame all Jews for the actions of the extremist ultra-Zionist settlers, who believe they are fulfilling God’s will by retaking Judea and Samaria (known as the West Bank to most)? Of course not.

      You seem eager to bring up examples of killings of Copts by some Egyptians, but why do you ignore the murders of Palestinians by settlers. Every time the government does something against the settlers, they take it out on the Palestinians. Take last week for example, 2 Palestinian civilians were killed by settlers from the “Beit Ain” illegal settlement, one of whom was a 15-year old child. Ironically, they were murdered on Holocaust Memorial Day (27th January). What about the mosques that are set on fire by settlers in response to government attempts to halt the expansions due to pressure from the international community?

      Just like I dismiss these as actions of extremists, and don’t believe that the world’s Jewish population or Israel’s Jewish population or even the entire settler movement is to blame, neither should you blame all Muslims or even Egypt’s Muslims. Bare in mind, both the settler attacks on Mosques and civilians and the Egyptian attacks on Churches and civilians, are often conducted with the criminal believing they are doing as their Holy Book commands them to.

    • “No massacres after 1932, it looks like.”

      Well, golly Bob that’s terrific! But the ‘stolen generation’ lasted until the late 60’s. You know, that’s were the aborigines children were forcefully removed from their parents by the government and church under the guise of “protection”. Great way to desiminate the population even further. Of course, far right extremists will claim it was for their own protection from abuse and dying out. But that’s the mentality of genocide deniers.

      http://www.eniar.org/stolengenerations.html

      From all the guilt, the the Australians finally had to apologize, in ehh 2008. Unfortunately, that’s a bit too late now since aborigines are living in utter poverty and still discriminated against in Australian society. It’s ok. The Islamic horde will be taking over Australia very soon so Marty will get a taste of irony.

      “This cannot be over-emphasized—the Australian government literally kidnapped these children from their parents as a matter of policy. White welfare officers, often supported by police, would descend on Aboriginal camps, round up all the children, separate the ones with light-coloured skin, bundle them into trucks and take them away. If their parents protested they were held at bay by police.”

      “Why not compare the ‘settler’ mentality to the mentality in Egypt where it’s ok in the minds of some to kill Copts?”

      You want a psychological etiology between colonialism and sectarian violence? Are you for real? You must have an unlimited grab bag full of irrational analogies and comparisons. I mean, you failed miserably with your civil rights movement analogy. So you decide to try this little non-sense out on a fresh new posting. Hmm…would you like the lowest common denominator of animal instinct of territory? How about the mentality of war for comparison? Just another vague rhetorical question by our resident loon.

      Anyways, let’s see what Pope Nicholas V, Christ’s representative on Earth at the time has to say about settler mentality:

      “to invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ, to put them into perpetual slavery, and to take away all their possessions and property”

      Perpetual warfare and slavery, to conquer the world in the name of Christianity. Don’t worry. The US still upholds the discovery doctrine to have dominion over the conquered infidels.

      It’s fine though Bob. Civil rights for minorities in Western secular democratic countries began really less then a century ago. The US still has sectarian violence in smaller form called hate crimes. But we also have a strong dynamic republic which upholds the rule of law. That’s what Egypt and arab countries need I believe to push forward towards progress. And seeing Muslims and Christians uniting in Egypt in harms way gives me hope that’s the future ahead. I’m an optimist Bob, like everyone else here. You’re an eager pessimist.

  4. Take last week for example, 2 Palestinian civilians were killed by settlers from the “Beit Ain” illegal settlement, one of whom was a 15-year old child.

    Are you referring to the incidents in which one a Palestinian tried to grab the sidearm of an Israeli soldier and in the second, a group of Palestinians had attacked an Israeli and the Israeli defended himself?

      • The “Clash of Civilizations” is big business for people like Bob, as are lies. There simply is no money, fame, fortune, etc. to be had with promoting the cold, hard, unspun truth. That’s why you have to go to the internet to find it, because the internet is the cheapest way to promote it.

          • By the way, I had to post something pro-Muslim to make it past the “moderation” phase. That speaks volumes about the groupthink they want here.

          • “By the way, I had to post something pro-Muslim to make it past the “moderation” phase. That speaks volumes about the groupthink they want here.”

            Sure. Keep telling yourself that. What about the loons such as Jihadwatch and Ahni on Spencerwatch, as well as HalalPork on Loonwatch in addition to many others. They’re able to make bigoted comments towards Muslims freely. It just takes a while if you’re a first time commenter for your comment to be approved.

        • “I am Ahni. I couldn’t post under that name for *some* reason, so I had to do this.”

          Uber-lol. I knew it was you. I didn’t want to say because I didn’t want to intimidate “Quaid”, as I thought he was a new loon and hence we should all go easy on him. But now I know it’s you…

    • “Are you referring to the incidents in which one a Palestinian tried to grab the sidearm of an Israeli soldier and in the second, a group of Palestinians had attacked an Israeli and the Israeli defended himself?”

      No. But nice to see you defending the murder of a 15-year old. The classic “Israel is acting in self-defence” strategy.

      • And that “Israel is acting in self-defense” strategy basically amounts to blaming the victim, just as rapists are often inclined to do.

        • Perhaps the only country that can shoot a 19-year old 4 times in the head and once in the chest, on a boat in international waters, under the cover of the night and claim it was “self defence”.

          The only “democracy” in the Middle East…

          • It is also one of the few countries (if not the only country) that has yet to define its borders.

            It is also the only country, where its people consider themselves a race above all others, and are also considered as such by those who aren’t even a member of it.

            It is also the only country, where the basis for its existence is entirely dependent on lies, deception, and perpetual war/conflict.

            The only reason some Christians support it, is because of the name “Israel”. Had it been called by any other name, they probably wouldn’t care about it at all.

          • Don’t forget the fact that Israeli aggression during Operation Grapes of Wrath, and the American help given to the Israeli army,
            gave the 9/11 attackers the reason they needed to launch their attacks. The incident was directly mentioned by Mohammed Atta and Osama Bin Laden, as the justification for the 9/11 atrocity.

            No doubt someone will accuse me of anti-semitism for questioning Israel’s behaviour, but I’m not antisemitic or even anti-Israeli. It’s Israeli aggression that is bad and that is all the world will ever remember it for, despite its other contributions to the fields of science and technology. While I disagree with the reasons for creating Israel, I accept that it has been created and I am ready to live with it, as long as it returns to its original borders, renounces its claim to any other land, and stops oppressing Palestinians.

          • It is also the only country, where its people consider themselves a race above all others, and are also considered as such by those who aren’t even a member of it.

            Right, like the Qur’an doesn’t support the idea of Islamic and Arab supremacy.

            The only reason some Christians support it, is because of the name “Israel”. Had it been called by any other name, they probably wouldn’t care about it at all.

            Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

            It’s very simple. Israel is surrounded by genocidal Muslim nations who believe it’s their religious duty to wipe them off the map. They have the right to defend themselves.

          • “Right, like the Qur’an doesn’t support the idea of Islamic and Arab supremacy.”

            So, according to you, that justifies extremist Jews to have the own dead of Jewish supremacism. In case you didn’t notice, it’s not an attack on Jews in general. Often, new loons comment on this site thinking this is some “Leftist Mooslim” forum and that the writers are anti Semitic, which doesn’t make sense because there is a Jewish writer. Anyway, the point was that some extreme racial theories held by a small minority of Jews is a problem.

            You mention that Arab supremacy is in the Quran. Since your claim is so confident, please find me the appropriate quote. After all, claims need to be backed up with evidence. While you’re busy finding it, I’ll hand you a quote from the Prophet’s final sermon that kind of disagrees about the Arab supremacy. I’m a non-Arab Muslim, and I’ve never encountered discrimination from Arabs, only respect. We are actually in the majority 🙂

            “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action”

            “They have the right to defend themselves.”

            Yes. So does every other country on the planet. But Israel often goes overboard in the name of defending itself. That’s what pisses us off.

          • “Right, like the Qur’an doesn’t support the idea of Islamic and Arab supremacy.”

            Nope, Islam specifically says that all races are equal (just look at Mossizle’s post for the relevant Hadith), thus Arab supremacy or any other racial supremacy is haram in Islam. As for Islamic supremacy, it’s a meaningless word used by Islamophobes to tar their opposition. Reza Aslan—a liberal, secular Muslim—is an Islamic Supremacist in the eyes of Islamophobes.

            “Yeah, keep telling yourself that.”

            Bernard Lewis, a Jewish Zionist, once said that the most pathetic figure in the whole Israel-Palestine debate is the moron who supports Israel simply he hates Arabs and Muslims (or something along those lines). In other words, pretty much the whole JihadWatch crew is moronic.

            It’s very simple. Israel is surrounded by genocidal Muslim nations who believe it’s their religious duty to wipe them off the map. They have the right to defend themselves.

            LOL…a laughable claim at best. You should look at some of the stuff Wikileaks released.

            http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/wikileaks-israelis-intend-to-keep-the-gazan-economy-on-the-brink-of-collapse.html

          • Right, like the Qur’an doesn’t support the idea of Islamic and Arab supremacy.

            Islam, like Christianity, is a missionary religion that perpetuates itself as “the one and only true religion of God”. Also, there is no “Arab supremacy” in the Qur’an, nor in any of the hadith literature, so you’re wrong about that.

            Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

            I don’t need to, since it’s true. Do you think if they kept the name “Palestine”, or adopted another like “Judea” or “New Khazaria”, (or if they just formed the state in a different location altogether) that it would have the same religious support it does today?

            You’d be a fool to think so.

            It’s very simple. Israel is surrounded by genocidal Muslim nations who believe it’s their religious duty to wipe them off the map. They have the right to defend themselves.

            When in reality, the only genocidal nation in that particular region, is Israel, who has made it their religious duty to wipe Palestine off the map. Unlike your statement, that is an observable, and verifiable reality.

  5. People listen we need to stand up. Go to jihad watch and debate them, ive been trying, with some success and lots of nasty names being thrown at me including; “go back to mecca you rat”; “if muslim women dont want to be harrased in germany them they can go to what ever islamic cess pool they came from, you can fo to” “your a tiqyya artist who claims to support peace but i bet this mask will come off when when islam rules the world”. Also some of my comments have been erased by mr spencer becuase i aserted him directly. people move now lets take our comments to jihad watch! There so weak with all of you supporting eachother we will see robert spencers site in disorder.

  6. Keep telling yourself that. What about the loons such as Jihadwatch and Ahni on Spencerwatch, as well as HalalPork on Loonwatch in addition to many others.

    LW has definitely eliminated dissenting views. There was a point where all my comments needed ‘approval’ before they would go through and even then, the admins then blocked my IP address and I posted using anonymizer websites. Eventually, all my comments using my e-mail address for JihadBob were blocked and my comments were getting erased.

    But hey, don’t believe either of us? Try it for yourself. Since you said any claim needs to be backed up with evidence, go ahead and change your IP address and start posting comments over there that go against the grain of tolerable view points.

    Go ahead, prove both Quaid and myself wrong. Choose an inoffensive screen name and start playing Devil’s Advocate.

    Tut tut.

    • “Try it for yourself. Since you said any claim needs to be backed up with evidence, go ahead and change your IP address and start posting comments over there that go against the grain of tolerable view points.”

      My comments don’t need to be approved anymore, because I’ve proven that I will be responsible when commenting, even when I post from different computers and hence with different IP addresses. Even I’ve had my comments moderated before and that just shows that Loonwatch is consistent in their moderation policy.

      And how can you say Loonwatch is against dissenting viewpoints when they’ve allowed you to spew your crap over here. You’ve been using that “Oh no! I’ve been IP banned” thing too many times. The boy who cried wolf.

      You are the evidence that Loonwatch allows dissenting viewpoints.

      “Tut tut.”

      I could say the same to you for failing to condemn and actually supporting Geller’s genocidal ramblings and Spencer’s anti freedom and anti democracy rant.

  7. LOL—that’s the sole argument the JihadWatch clowns have against Loonwatch. However, notwithstanding the complaints of loons, the admins have made their policy pretty clear: keep on topic and don’t spam. Unfortunately, JihadBob and other loons have been unwilling or unable to do these simple things. Even you’ve admitted once, Bob, that at least one of your posts was off-topic (in reality most of them are), and you can’t deny that you don’t spam either, since you have a penchant for making the same post in barely different forms almost dozens of times in a single thread.

    As for Loonwatch nor allowing dissenting views, that’s utter garbage, You’re proof that Loonwatch more than allows dissent, since you had posted your garbage on there for quite some time. You didn’t do very much with your opportunity to defend Spencer though, and often ended up getting brutally pwned on the threads.

    This whole argument by the JihadWatch crew is also quite hypocritical, since Spencer himself has banned people from JihadWatch. I posted once on a JihadWatch thread once and consequently ended up getting banned—although I can’t seem to find that post anymore despite looking (it was about some claims Pam made about Rauf). Furthermore, Loonwatch allows insults to be thrown at its main man Danios while—as Defender of Islam has highlighted—Spencer is a bit too touchy and cowardly and deletes comments directed against him. I don’t want to see the loons being hypocritical (although that’s a universal trait amongst Islamophobes) and complaining about Loonwatch’s comment policies when they know that Spencer himself is guilty of censoring dissent.

  8. although I can’t seem to find that post anymore despite looking (it was about some claims Pam made about Rauf).

    Funny that, I suppose.

  9. I’m guessing those over sized posters Egyptian protesters are carrying of late tyrant Nasser are the clearest indication of where they want to take the country.

    Nothing says freedom, liberty and fraternity like a demagogue who was an order of magnitude worse than Mubarak.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *