Little Green Footballs

Monday, November 05, 2007

Combating Islam...

....one Cheeto at a time.

259 Sharmuta 11/05/07 11:24:32

re: #240 Ethelred

I have seen with my own eyes the results Charles Johnson and his minions have in combating the creeping tide of shari'a, so don't you tell me LGFers aren't doing anything to combat islam!
If only neo-Nutzies like Brussels Journal and Atlas Shrugs realised that 'combating' Islam consisted of sending swarms of swivel eyed loons over to various websites to spam, freep and troll! Perhaps they wouldn't have to make friends with the Nazis?

89 comments:

The Sphinx said...

Oh God, that comment section was extremely whacky, and being an LGF thread, that really means something.

I have an image of this Ethelred fellow right now. Poor old confused slob. Sharmuta going all bitchy on him doesn't help much either.

I really don't know whether to call it cute or pathetic any longer..

Anonymous said...

lgf is a joke website anyway.

No use giving them publicity, i have read the comments and they sound ubbelievably brain washed and retarded its not even Funny.

I never seen so much racism and vile comments about Anyone different to them, especially if their muslim.

I cant believe the amount of racism they habor and they cant even see that themselves, its just shocking.

zane said...

to the commentor above, in some sense i agree. BUT, we must recognise that LGF is now a mainstream republican blog, and does on numerous occasion set the anti muslim agenda on the right. Watch fox news long enough and you realise they use 2 sources of newsgathering, Drudge and LGF. So they are able to enhance the whacko echo chambers of the comments sections on LGF.

i hasten to add this isnt only in america, check out all these uber right wing blogs in europe that chuckles has now decided to hate on. Up until 2 weeks ago all these blogs were posting every story Chuckles posted soon after.

It is not a matter of giving publicity, it is a matter of exposing them, and perhaps turning them on to the path of reason and away from eliminationism.

Anonymous said...

4 words:

Paranoid
Delusions
of
Grandeur

Anonymous said...

It's embarrasing to be a conservative when the topic of conversation is Charles Johnson.

/hangs head

ChenZhen said...

I see my pal Sharmuta made LGFW again. I'm sure she's proud.

I'm not going to go over there to see if she actually provides any examples, (although I do remember them bravely standing up for the rights of a Koran dunker named Stanislav), so maybe someone can help me out?

Oh, and one more thing...

Hi Sharm!

Anonymous said...

excuse me, anti-islam anti-christianity, anti-judiasm, anti-hindusm is not a racism . it is anti-specific-religion or anti all religions. and it is freedom of speech, it is ok to counter an ideology. it is not ok to advocate hatred of members of that religion or ideology. it is not ok to advocate violence. it is ok to ask government to ban certain religion ,it is not ok for the government to ban that religion unless that religion criminality is indistinguishable from the religion itself

also there are a lot of ligitimate concerns about hatred teachings in Islam , I must remind you folks here that there are countries like Saudi Arabia who bans all religions in public settings except Islam, who funds hatred and rejection of others. I must remind you that homosexuals, women, athiests, christians, jews being tortured, oppressed, enslaved everyday at hand of radical Islam.

so while you disagree with LGF, you guys must acknowledge the legitimacy of the threat.

Anonymous said...

Anon, I don't think you can really mean this: it is ok to ask government to ban certain religion ,it is not ok for the government to ban that religion unless that religion criminality is indistinguishable from the religion itself

I assume you're an American. I am an American and an atheist, and yet I think the government has no business telling people what religion they can follow--or must not follow. Understand that I think all religions are awful--but I'd still never want a government that interferes in people's personal lives like that.

there are a lot of ligitimate concerns about hatred teachings in Islam , I must remind you folks here that there are countries like Saudi Arabia who bans all religions in public settings except Islam

We can probably agree that all theocracies, and some Islamic theocratic governments, fuel hatred and violence and often commit terrible human rights violations. I don't believe there is anything special about Islam. It's not intrinsically more or less misogynistic or homophobic than many other religions, and I would argue that the extremist/fanatic wing of every religion has some vile things done under the aegis of religion.

And in every religion, even in the ones you'd likely agree with me are total bunk like Scientology--there will always also be good and generous and loving people who are adherents of it.

Hatred is not an intrinsic part of any religion's ideology. It IS an entailment of all zealotry and fanaticism--and I include nationalism. That's not special to Islam, or Christianity, or any religion.

I don't acknowledge the 'legitmacy of the threat'. There is no conflict in acknowledging human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and yet maintaining that Islam is a religion of peace. If you are a Christian, would you like me to say your religion is a religion of hatred because I can point to people like Fred Phelps?

I can see all this even though I'm opposed to religion in general. I can see that the problem isn't religion and that it's wrong to condemn all the adherents of some religion based on the actions of a few members, as wrong as it would be for me to condemn people on the basis of their skin colour, or gender, or sexual preference. I can see this--

Why can't you?

Anonymous said...

"Hatred is not an intrinsic part of any religion's ideology."

Actually, there does seems to be a lot of hatred built into the Koran. For example:

Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61

Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96

Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99

Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men. 2:161


There are many more examples. I understand what you are saying about Christianity, and you could probably bring up some Biblical quotes that wouldn't look too good for Christians, either, but let's be frank.

Islam does have a problem, and it would be great if we could discuss this problem rationally without getting all defensive or anti-Islam about it.

The Sphinx said...

Anon @12:59,

I'd like to point out that your translations are flawed. First off:

"Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations." 2:61

This verse isn't talking about Jews in general, the word "Jew" isn't even mentioned. If you look at the verse in its entirety, you will see that it's about a conversation between Moses and his people. The very same people who blasphemed against God and committed sins.
It has NOTHING to do with Judaism or Jews, and is in an entirely historical context.

"Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell." 2:96

Exactly the same as above. In the original text, nothing about Jews is mentioned, but about those specific people in that specific point in history.

"Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99 "

See how missing out a few words twists the context around. The real translation of the WHOLE verse:

"Truly, we have sent down to you clear revalations, and nobody will disbelieve them but the wicked"

And finally:

"Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men." 2:161

You didn't expect Islam or any religion to be welcoming to the concept of atheism.


My advice to you: NEVER trust a standalone translation of some verse of the Quran. Read the entire passage or chapter. The maniacs over at LGF have proven how easy it is to be misled by a bogus translation.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12.59: sphinx has already taken issue with your translations. I don't think it even matters if yours are bogus: there is another and larger point to make:

"Hatred is not an intrinsic part of any religion's ideology."

Actually, there does seems to be a lot of hatred built into the Koran. ...

you could probably bring up some Biblical quotes that wouldn't look too good for Christians, either, but let's be frank.


We are being frank here. You've just admitted I could find some Bible quotes that are just as repulsive and damning of Christians. Do I really need to post them? Surely not.

The point is the same. Repulsive things can be found in any holy text for any religion; it's only repulsive people that pick out such hatred and base a way of life on them. Those people are to be condemned--and you find such people in ALL religions, not merely Islam, and among atheists also.

There is nothing intrinsically 'worse' about Islam as a religion compared to any other religion, nor is it more likely to attract people who already have a propensity for hate and violence. Islam is not the problem.

Lex said...

Wow, I just got banned! No explanation though. Wow.

Lex said...

Never mind. Not banned.

Anonymous said...

Anon @4:23

I'm sorry, but I disagree. There are no provisions in Christianity or Judaism to conquer the world and subject the world to a law given by God.

Because Islam does seek to do these things, at this point in time Islam IS indeed the problem.

IMO, it would be better to rationally discuss fixing this problem than wasting time denying it exists.

Red Tulips said...

This should be rather obvious to Sphinx, who somehow continuously ignores reality.

I will not judge the Koran as a war document, even as I believe it very clearly does advocate violence. That is a non-issue. The point is that millions of Muslims around the world are either engaging in violence or supporting acts of violence through money and propoganda based on their interpretation of Islam. This is a fact.

Quit attempting to say "But really Islam is a religion of peace" when very clearly your co-religionists disagree.

If you truly believe Islam is a religion of peace, your argument should not be with Western non-Muslims, but rather with your co-religionists.

And the argument that "there are crazies in every religion" simply does not wash. The reality of the world we live in is that only Islam is a religion with a worldwide network of global jihad, its goal bent on world domination. There is no comparison to any other religion, even if other religions also might have their own crazies.

This does not mean every MUSLIM is evil, but it does mean that ISLAM has a problem.

And until and unless LGF Watch takes Norm Finkelstein's blog off its link list, it is a hate blog. Norm Finkelstein proudly loves and supports Hezbollah, an organization whose goal is the Final Solution of Jews around the world.

LGF Watch, which claims to be "anti-hate," links to this blog.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Anonymous said...

And until and unless LGF Watch takes Norm Finkelstein's blog off its link list, it is a hate blog. Norm Finkelstein proudly loves and supports Hezbollah, an organization whose goal is the Final Solution of Jews around the world.

So that's guilt by association times two! Wow.

They also link to Harry's Place which is also pro-War and pro-Israel....guess that means they're Zionists as well as pro-Islamists.

The Sphinx said...

"I will not judge the Koran as a war document, even as I believe it very clearly does advocate violence. That is a non-issue. The point is that millions of Muslims around the world are either engaging in violence or supporting acts of violence through money and propoganda based on their interpretation of Islam. This is a fact."

And millions of Americans are not engaging in acts of violence and supporting acts of violence through money and propaganda that is fueling the Iraq/Afghanistan wars?

"Quit attempting to say "But really Islam is a religion of peace" when very clearly your co-religionists disagree.

If you truly believe Islam is a religion of peace, your argument should not be with Western non-Muslims, but rather with your co-religionists."


How many times do I have to tell you: None of my co-religionists I know disagree with me.

What do you expect me to do, walk around my friends circle of already peaceful Muslims and keep preaching to them how they shouldn't be violent?
Or do you really think I should actually go and search for terrorists and argue with them?

That's ridiculous. And as long as you keep making such silly statements, I have every reason to argue with you and the likes of you.

Besides, so far, you STILL don't know anything about Islam, and reading LGF every day will even broaden your ignorance. No amount of fact-distortion, misinformation, hearsay or simply lies will ever change the fact that Islam itself does _not_ have a problem. Anonymous @4:23 has elaborated nicely on it.

And finally, your manner of categorizing people by whom they're linked to (or who the people they are linked to are linked to, etc.) is ridiculous. By that standard, you are a bigot and a hypocrite by associating yourself with Charles Johnson and LGF.

Anonymous said...

Sphinx, you say "Islam itself does _not_ have a problem" but surely you must recognize the fact that there is a worldwide problem and Islam is heavily involved. It's undeniable.

Could we just start with that and go from there?

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous, 11/07/2007 11:41:00 AM, well, I agree principally with you, but not with all what you said, I believe we can ban some ideologies if it becomes serious threats to our civil societies, I don't say we should do that to Islam now (it depends), but we should keep that on the table, any religion becomes serious threat must be banned.

Though I believe Islam can be changed. and yes I accept you call Christianity or any other religion in the same way. why should I care?

I m not American. and for your record I m an ex-muslim lived in a Islamic arab society, I don't believe in any religion. and I do nothing to defend them. you are an atheist, you should not be defending any religion especially these three religions when it is easy to point out any vile verse. but yes we should defend our right for free thinking, expression and privacy and that the government keep away from interfering in our lives as much as possible. (has limits)

radical islam is a threat, radical islam leaves you no choice, no freedom and no expression, brainwash people and turn them into zombies, I speak out of experience, (was zombie myself), I was religious practicing one, and I ll never be one again, I hate it based on logic, emotions and all. I m an insider as you can say.

I just want two things to be clear that religious zealots keep their religions away from my life, and I can criticize them and their symbols anytime without fear.

my appeal to the right and left America is not to use this as a political gains, but rather be clear, decisive and focus.

Of course i m not saying bush folks are right, just look how bush keeps maintaining relations with Saudi Arabia, the east, west and all should wake up for this danger, should help the oppressed muslims and Arabs who live under tyrannies of islamists. we are not about hatred, we are about keeping our modern life safe, flourishing and civil.

enough with political-religions. enough.

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx,

You continually ignore the reality of Islamic terrorists. They exist. Wake up and smell the coffee. There is a network of global jihadists, including at the mosque you attend, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood! Tariq Ramadan, linked with the Muslim Brotherhood, explicitly endorsed terrorism against Israel. So please stop your equivocations and obfuscations of reality. Anyone who follows the news knows the reality that Islam has a problem.

It is insulting that in a day and age of 9/11, London bombers, Bali bombers, Madrid bombing, Hezbollah butchery, Pew public opinion polling showing wide support for jihad, honor killing, daily massacres...

All done in the name of Islam...

That you can claim I am "ignorant" about Islam when I simply say that Islam has a problem.

I am not going to engage in a theological debate with you as to whether Islam is "inherently" evil. This is a non-issue and irrelevant. The point is that many MILLIONS of Muslims support evil in the name of Islam. THAT IS REALITY. You have the gall, the shocking lack of logic, to tell me that because your friends have not explicitly planned terror attacks with you there are no Muslims out there doing exactly that, in the name of Islam???

As far as LGF Watch goes, by linking to the group, you are claiming an affiliation. You are explicitly saying that Finky, who supports a group with a goal of Final Solution, is worth reading. So yes. That does mean "guilt by association." If you don't want that guilt, don't link to a hate site.

You claim LGF is so evil, but you have to dig through the comments to even come up with anything. The comments are not representative of what Charles Johnson is saying, unlike your links, which were actively chosen by LGF Watch.

So if anything, LGF is MUCH WORSE than LGF.

Red Tulips said...

Meant to say at the end "LGF Watch is much worse than LGF."

The Sphinx said...

"You continually ignore the reality of Islamic terrorists. They exist. Wake up and smell the coffee. There is a network of global jihadists, including at the mosque you attend, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood!"

Did I ever deny that there are terrorists? Stop acting as if I did. And at the same time, stop making ridiculous comments about a mosque I visit that of which you have never even been on the same continent, and just because the guy heading the place might have been a member some decades ago.
But your mechanical assessment of people didn't consider that there might be nothing wrong with the place. It seemingly doesn't add up to you. So stop categorizing people because of whatever links you think to exist. That's silly.

And that is exactly my problem with your arguments. There is so much that you DON'T know because frankly your news services didn't do any effort to show you these things, and yet you act as if you know more than I do about my OWN religion, my OWN societies, and my OWN mentality.
Bit strange, no?

"Anyone who follows the news knows the reality that Islam has a problem."

So you rely solely on the news for information on how the world is working? How about you start living in the real world for a change, where things aren't really that one-sided and simple to categorize as in the media?
Seriously, it'd help your peace of mind a lot to just switch of that damn TV set, and think about what the news is NOT showing you.

"That you can claim I am "ignorant" about Islam when I simply say that Islam has a problem."

Of course I do, and I stand by it.



"You claim LGF is so evil, but you have to dig through the comments to even come up with anything. The comments are not representative of what Charles Johnson is saying, unlike your links, which were actively chosen by LGF Watch."

Dig through the comments? There is nothing as easy as finding a completely stupid, hateful, violent or simply genocidal comment on LGF. Every thread you find comments that are absolutely ridiculous in whatever context you take it.

And unless Charles doesn't do anything about it, that he repeatedly claims to be free of violence or murderous thoughts (and he's really doing nothing, judging by the amount of objectionable comments that are still there and get + ratings), he's just a big fat hypocrite.

And so far this place has done a great job in exposing the guy and his drooling followers for what they all are. You complain here about a link to Finkelstein's site, because he allegedly supports a final solution (which is a rather hysterical claim you always like to make), whereas on LGF, there have been many many explicit calls for a "final solution" for the "Islamic cancer" (which isn't limited to terrorists, as you will hopefully have noticed).

So, people who live in glass houses..

Red Tulips said...

One more thing.

Norm Finkelstein actually said "We are all Hezbollah," and was caught on video saying this. He was invited by Iran to speak at its Holocaust denial conference, and only did not attend due to a scheduling conflict.

He is a Jew who hates other Jews, who supports those who seek to annhilate other Jews.

I ask this to the blog owners of LGF Watch: do you support Hezbollah? Do you support Holocaust denial?

If not, why do you link to those who do?

It should be noted that Sabbah also supports Hezbollah, and he too is linked to by this supposedly "hate free" blog.

Anonymous said...

Red tulips -- although you make some points that are certainly worthy of debate, your tone is far too combative to do much if any good. For instance, when you said "because your friends have not explicitly planned terror attacks with you there are no Muslims out there doing exactly that, in the name of Islam" are you thinking this will convince Sphinx or any other Muslim readers to really consider looking at things differently?

Because in my opinion it sounds more like you want to see them on the defensive, like you're picking a fight with them. Isn't this counterproductive to the ultimate goal of changing Islam for the better?

Your tone coupled with your support of LGF really just goes to show how LGF is part of the problem and not the solution.

The Sphinx said...

The sheep squad of LGF are all crying their hearts out over this nice photo by Michael Yon.

Now I liked the photo a lot, but jeez, did you really think this is something revolutionary in the Mid-East? Muslims and Christians getting along well together and helping each other out in times of need? For crying out loud (pardon the pun), it wasn't any different in Egypt, and I severely doubt that it's something new in Iraq either.

Oh how reality can affect ignorant people..

In other news, once upon a time, not too long ago, our favourite hypocrite™ has posted a thread where he is very wary about Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani. However, a few threads later he snarks around about CAIR complaining about just that, and decides that the endorsement isn't all bad.

Why don't you make up your mind, Chuckie? Would sure give you an ounce of credibility..

Dealer said...

Red Tulips.

Go back to LGF and take you 'informed' opinion to the braindead echochamber there.

There are a lot of people who appreciate LGFW and what they do, and frankly labelling them as anti-Semites and holocaust deniers because they link to somebody who may support an organisation which is anti-Semitic is desperate in the extreme.

PS A logical fallacy isn't a good start when looking for an argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx,

You are telling me Muslims are so peaceful and there is no worldwide jihad going on right now. This obviously ignores the reality of the thousands of attacks by jihadists before and since 9/11. Your response to these attacks is to claim Islam has no problem? Yet these Jihadists are acting in the name of Islam! They recruit from mosques! This is the world in which we live in!

You claimed, not me, that your mosque was Muslim Brotherhood affiliated. I will bet you that if I walked into your mosque and asked the head imam to condemn human butchery attacks against Israelis, he would not do it. I will ask you this: if you are so sure your mosque is so 'peaceful,' then why not go to your imam and ask him to explicitly condemn suicide butchery attacks in Israel, in a sermon to fellow Muslims? Let's see how he responds. If he is so peaceful, this hardly would be an issue, right?

The proof is in the pudding, only you like to ignore the pudding.

I don't care if you can twist and contort the words of the Koran and Hadith to be the most peaceful religion on the planet. It is an irrelevance. This is why my knowledge or lack thereof of Islam is an irrelevance.

The point is that a Koranic interpretation like the one you claim to have is simply not accepted by most Muslims. The proof of this is in the actions they are taking either actively supporting suicide bombing, or financially and with propoganda supporting jihadists.

And when you come back by saying how somehow Iraq/Afghanistan makes America "equivalent," I say to you that this makes you a moral relativist, and I question how you can call yourself a religious man if you engage in moral relativism. But moreover, it ignores the reality that the US is doing everything it can to avoid civilian deaths, even at the expense of losing the war. In contrast, the jihadists aim for the women and children. Moreover, the Taliban was one of the worst, if not the worst, human rights violators on the planet, and anyone who cares about human rights simply cannot defend that heinous regime that was a state sponsor of terror. Saddam, too, was a heinous human rights violator. And the violence in Iraq now is that of jihadists butchering civilians in Iraq.

So I am glad you are so upset about what went on and is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. That should make you pro-American and anti-jihadist.

Unless, that is, you only use the words "Iraq" and "Afghanistan" as buzz words you know nothing about, as supposed "proof" of the "evil" of "the West."

So sad. I keep reading your moral equivalence, and one would think that a religious man such as yourself would eschew any and all moral equivalence. Perhaps that is what you need to do in order to pretend that there is no jihadist threat in the world.

But doing so only makes things worse. Denying there is a problem only fuels the problem.

The tragedy is that the jihadists are massacring Muslims at a rate far higher than Westerners.

Red Tulips said...

One more thing, Sphinx.

In addition to everything else, you ignore the reality of the dhimmi laws still in place in much of the Islamic world, and which were crippling for centuries. The yellow Star of David that was worn by Jews during Nazi Germany had its origins during the Caliphate, when they had to dress differently to prove how inferior they were. In addition, their houses had to be a lower height than Muslim houses, they paid a jiyza, they could not build any new synagogues, they could not testify against a Muslim in court, and could not serve in the military or government.

In fact, the only place in the Mideast where Jews, Christians, and Muslims have any equality is in Israel.

But, oh right...prior to the creation of Israel, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in peace and harmony with flowers and puppies.

Silly me!

Anonymous said...

Red Tulips:

Your blogger profile shows that you contribute to Culture for All, a blog that links to Gates of Vienna which supports Vlaams Belang, The Swedish Democrats and other fascist tainted political parties and is in the process of piling in on Charles Johnson for not wanting to associate with obviously disgusting 'white nationalists'. Is this correct?

Just asking.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Gates of Vienna supply 'security' for Bigotpalooza?

Red Tulips said...

Anon,

Fair criticism. I have not updated my links list (or my blog) in a long time, prior to the revelations about Vlaams Belang and Brussels Journal's support of them.

I 100% do not support Vlaams Belang or their cause.

Let's see the people of LGF Watch say that about Norm Finkelstein and Sabbah, and similarly de-link them.

The Sphinx said...

Red Tulips, until you stop putting words in my mouth that I have never said and throw around some claims that you entirely made up, then I will not read beyond the first paragraph of your last post. So there.

Anonymous said...

Red Tulips:

You may also want to remove the Israpundit link, after all that site promotes the memory of a man who wanted Israel to be a purely Jewish state, advocated the use of terrorism in the name of ethnic cleansing and was banned as a racist by the State of Israel itself.

http://www.israpundit.com/2007/?p=6084

Anonymous said...

Sphinx, major cop-out. You can do better than that...I hope.

Red tulip does come across combatively, but he also makes some damn good points that you would do well to refute rather than ignore.

Anonymous said...

The Sphinx, I read your blog before, and it seems you lived most of your life in the west and you bragging about how christians and Muslims live in peace in the islamic world. well, I live most of my life in an islamic country (Iraq), I used to be muslim and I left Islam. I can not stand safely and tell my own country citizens that I left Islam without harm, the laws of Iraq although secular, it is obviously put struggles to leaving Islam. religion is documented in our ID cards. wherever I go now, I have Islam in my ID, why?

Iraqi law is one of modern ones among islamic countries in mideast !! wow, just guess what other countries have. yet, that laws clearly state that a non-muslim can convert to islam and the law states the procedures, yet not procedures for the opposite way.

Marriages, basically in Islam if you are a muslim man you can't marry outside islam,christianity,judiasm. and if you are a muslim woman you can't marry non-muslim. Iraqi laws secular, but courts and procedural laws provide obstacles that does not let you marry as you wish if you are registered as muslim.

yes, of course people help each other in Iraq, I didn't WOW about the picture, but that does not mean there is no descrimination, I believe in Iraq there is tolerance more than egypt, but just imagine, what is egypt then.

the tolerance came from secularism not from Islamism, Islamism on the rise, and each time it rise, tolerance gets low, why?

in 1980s Iraq were more tolerant than when islamism gets more. in 1950s it was even better. religion was not important at all. you know why? Iraq was a very secular state, leftist, communists were dominant , and even rightists were moderate conservatives. people were tired of Islamism already, they could remember the oppression of Khilafah.

all troubles of Iraq is product of today islamism. there are many iraqis like me tired of that, and tired of some Arabs and SOME Muslims who keep ranting against US, the west, "iraq occupation", and forgot about all what terrorists do under name of islam.

for me, I have no problem with left and right America principally . I m with any American, westerner, easterner who can help humanity, who keep supporting countries in need like Iraq, who stand firm against dictatorship, communism, islamism and who support freedom. I have no problem who that be, hillary or rudy.

Bless America & Iraq.


to reply to this post, please write re:Irq1

The Sphinx said...

anonymous @2:49:

You know, after telling Red Tulips (a "she" by the way) the same stuff hundreds of times before, it's really getting old. I shouldn't be wasting my time with this.

And what she has said in that comment, I've already refuted many, many times before. I'm not doing it again. If you knew how much time I've wasted on this, you'll understand.

And re:lrq1

I'm sorry that you have to suffer for such things, but the fact is that corruption is running deep in lots of Arabic governments, mixed with the already worsening instability of the region.
And before there is a revolution and these corrupt governments fall, basically nothing will get better.

However I do not think that this revolution should include reforming Islam as a religion, or be induced from the outside, as America has grandiously failed at. Because toppling corrupt governments has nothing to do with reforming a religion, (beside the fact that according to that religion, corruption is deplorable), and an interventionalist approach from the outside will only make everything (and I mean _everything_) worse.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. See you in another thread.

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx,

You literally never, not one time, ever, refuted the things I bring up. You cannot.

Instead, each time, you get huffy and ignore what I have to say.

Sad.

And I am still waiting for LGF Watch to affirmatively say they are anti-Hezbollah and do not condone or support suicide bombing in Israel. (these are the positions of Sabbah and Norm Finkelstein, blogs they link to)

DisgustedWithCharles said...

So Charles Johnson is shocked (shocked!) to see racists among the anti-Islam crowd.

If only Charles Johnson were as adept at spotting the neo-Nazi insignia on his own "minions" as he is at spotting racist symbols in pictures of Belgians and Swedes.

And yes, the Iron Cross is a symbol commonly used by neo-Nazis -- and "LGF Minions". Charles has two standards, one for Charles and his groupies, and the other for people Charles doesn't like.

Dealer said...

Does Finkelstein support suicide bombing?

PS if your answer contains the words 'HE SUPPORTS HEZBOLLAH' please read up on logical fallacies.

PPS Where's your denunciation of Israpundit, Brussels Journal etc?

cokane said...

Red tulips needs to wake up. More innocents have died from US arsenal in the GWOT than the number of people killed by Islamic terrorists. If we're really to be objective about what's evil, well, let's be objective.

Anonymous said...

cokane, the west is responding in self-defense. The jihadists are responding in religious frenzy.

Self-defense is normal. Religious zealotry is a scurge on mankind.

Guess which one we need to address.

Anonymous said...

Sad to see ignorant people trying to quote the Koran in order to make a point about Muslims. Have you ever met a Muslim? Because I grew up in California and knew plenty. They were just regular people like any other. No better or worse than the Christians, Buddhists, etc.

Except atually the Arab Muslim immigrants running stores were more polite and friendly than your average shopkeeper.

Red Tulips, it makes you look ignorant. That's okay, it just means you don't know. We are all ignorant until we know. What's not okay is to be ignorant and proud of it, abusive about it, etc.

I know I am going on a rant now but most American muslims just want to live their life like anybody else. With all the hate propaganda on LGF and other places and the bogus WOT, it's getting harder for them it's not fair or right. That's why you ought to knock it off. Get off your computer, go out and meet people. Quit participating in this stupid shit.

Anonymous said...

So, we now have 2 muslim commentators, of which one picked up his ball and doesn't want to play anymore, and the other who doesn't think we should be having this online discussion in the first place.

Not so good, guys. Which is too bad because people really do need to hear from you, but those kinds of responses aren't going to help anymore than what Charles is doing at LGF.

For instance, if the war on terror is "bogus," just what in your opinion should the west's response to terrorist attacks by jihadists be?!

Dealer said...

"So, we now have 2 muslim commentators, of which one picked up his ball and doesn't want to play anymore, and the other who doesn't think we should be having this online discussion in the first place."

1. Why should The Sphinx be forced into debate? Should Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers have the right to bully others into a response? Why should anyone be expected to answer morons like Red Tulips?

2. Wether we should have the discussion online or not isn't the discussion. The discussion should exist outside the internet. Since when have keyboard warriors who's fingers are smeared with cheeto dust be taken seriously? Let's leave discussion to the people who know what daylight looks like.

Anonymous said...

The discussion should exist outside the internet.

The internet makes conversations like these possible. People can take their time and think things over before they post, so the debate could and should be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to happen at LGF, where reasonable Muslims would never post.

Oftentimes in real life, people choose not to discuss these kinds of things openly and honestly. There's no reason we can't do so here.

Your response is nothing but a cop-out.

cokane said...

Ah anonymous, so it doesn't matter how many innocents die from the invasion of Iraq, it only matters that we did it "in self-defense".

Dealer said...

Your response is nothing but a cop-out.

No, it's the truth. The conversation between Muslim and non-Muslim needs to be done in the real world. Online discussion mean nothing.

That's the problem with LGF'ers (and to be fair Kossacks and other online communities), they think visiting LGF, typing their bigoted bullshit, giving Charles Johnson a tongue enema is actually contributing something to the WOT. They think that they're fighting the good fight. It's pure delusion.

Anonymous said...

Re: cokane said...

Ah anonymous, so it doesn't matter how many innocents die from the invasion of Iraq, it only matters that we did it "in self-defense".


========

most innocent people died at hands of terrorists, I thought this is obvious. Iraqis were dying under saddam and after saddam, the difference is that now there is freedom, free press (kind of), media is free to report and there is a hope. all these things were none in Iraq, and innocent people were dying. I don't blame US, I blame terrorists.


[by the way, I m not the anonymous you replied to]
irq1

Anonymous said...

Dealer, you say "The conversation between Muslim and non-Muslim needs to be done in the real world." I disagree. Where else but the internet could we possibly hope to have an ongoing conversation like this one? It's vital, it's productive, and the internet is here to stay.

Embrace it!!

(You do make some good points about LGF and Kos, but this site is different...and way better.)

Red Tulips said...

It's very interesting that I am linked to Brussels Journal, a blog I never once even posted at, nor linked to. I also already have denounced Vlaams Belang, but that is irrelevant. No, I clearly must be a Nazi supporter, because you call me a Nazi supporter, so you must be right!

It's so sad, the moral equivalence given between what is going on in Iraq and what the human butcher suicide bombers do. The American troops do all they can to avoid killing innocents. The suicide bomb human butcherers do all they can to cause innocents to die.

And when exactly did I even quote from the Koran? I dare you to find even one quote from the Koran that I listed in this thread. I said, rather, that what matters is that millions of Muslims see the Koran as a war document, not whether the Koran and Islam 'inherently' is a peace document, or COULD be peaceful.

Finally. Hassan Nasrallah, in charge of Hezbollah, famously said "If all the Jews were to gather in Israel, it would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." This is hardly idle talk. I have a Jewish friend who had to flee Lebanon for his very life, because the fact that he was Jewish meant that Nasrallah and his goons were out to kill him. Hezbollah famously is also behind the 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Bueos Aires, Argentina, as well as a Jewish Community Center there. They would like to finish off where Hitler started.

And Finkelstein supports them.

And this blog links to them.

And this blog will not and has not come out against Hezbollah.

I repeat. Unless and until this blog takes a firm stance against Hezbollah and all that Finkelstein stands for, it is no better than LGF.

Actually, it is worse.

Dealer said...

Why should LGFW delink Norman Finkelstein on your say so? Does linking to NF mean you support Hezbollah? That's sounds like guilt by association to me?

Where's your condemnation of Israpundit for his/her praise of a known terrorist and racist? Are you going to delink them as well? Do we have to go through your entire links section to reveal some people who you may agree on some levels have less than stellar 'other' views?

Are you willing to be judged as you are willing to judge others? Are you willing to commit to a logical fallacy despite making you look like a complete idiot?

Dealer said...

"And this blog links to them"

LGFW doesn't link to Hezbollah. If your argument is that Finkelstein is Hezbollah then you've just made yourself look even more moronic.

Red Tulips said...

Dealer,

Common mode of deflection; instead of focusing on my argument, you attack the person making a valid criticism.

Norm Finkelstein and Sabbah are both very public supporters of terrorists who have a goal of Final Solution. In short, they support a Final Solution of Jews.

Linking to these people then shows an implicit support for a Final Solution.

I do not link to any JDL site or the sort. Rather, Israpundit expressed support for Kahane's premise that coexistence is impossible. Kahane and his followers never once went on killing sprees of Arabs or Muslims; Baruch Goldstein did what he did a full FOUR YEARS after Kahane died, and did not act in concert with Kahane's followers. (it should be known that I fully condemn Baruch Goldstein)

You are making an equivalence where none exists in order to deflect attention from the fact that this blog links to those who support a Final Solution of Jews.

Dealer, I ask you this; do you or do you not support Hezbollah? Do you or do you not support terror against civilians, including Israeli civilians?

I await your reply.

Lex said...

I think they're getting weirder, personally. For instance, this thread at "Gates of Vienna":

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-do-you-want-in-your-foxhole.html#readfurther

How much closer can you really get to advocating genocide, really?

dealer said...

Deflection? Umm you're the one using the guilt by association argument. So let's deal with your accusations first eh?

Linking to these people then shows an implicit support for a Final Solution.

No it doesn't. In much the same way that linking to some of the links you do promotes their views. Don't you get the logic of the 'guilt by association' fallacy or are you willingly blind?

I do not link to any JDL site or the sort. Rather, Israpundit expressed support for Kahane's premise that coexistence is impossible. Kahane and his followers never once went on killing sprees of Arabs or Muslims; Baruch Goldstein did what he did a full FOUR YEARS after Kahane died, and did not act in concert with Kahane's followers. (it should be known that I fully condemn Baruch Goldstein)

Kahane was a terrorist. Israpundit declared that his racist views were correct. If you're going to hold Brussels Journal to a certain standard you should Israpundit. As for Baruch Goldstein committing the crimes 4 years after Kahane died can Islamist terrorists claim the same dissassociation from the teaching from their dead spiritual leaders? I didn't think so.

Dealer, I ask you this; do you or do you not support Hezbollah? Do you or do you not support terror against civilians, including Israeli civilians?

I personally abhore terrorism and those who commit mass murder. Wether they be Hezbollah, al Qaeda or any other killers in the name of god.

But i absolutely reject your moronic, hypocritical hounding of the authors of this blog to make the same statement as your logic of 'guilt by association' is ridiculous.

Red Tulips said...

Dealer,

You make a broad pronouncement without any understanding of what you are speaking about. You wrote, and I quote:

Kahane was a terrorist.

If by terrorist you mean he went around killing innocent people, then you are flatly mistaken.

Kahane killed not a single person. No one following what Kahane had to say killed a single Arab or Muslim.

I disagree with his ideas, but quit pretending Kahane somehow is the "Jewish equivalent" to Islamists.

It also is not "racist" to say that Jews and 'Palestinians' cannot live together in peaceful coexistence, ever. It is a viewpoint that may or may not be correct.

Where I part ways with Kahane is with his notion that 'Palestinians' should be given the choice of monetary compensation for moving to Jordan, or in the alternative, using force to drive them out. I also disagree with his idea of Israel being governed by Halacha (Jewish law).

But Kahane had a very valid point that perhaps peaceful coexistence is never possible.

It is not "racist" to say that. Jews are also not a "race."

And I ask...why is it okay for the Israeli government to force Jews out of their homes in Gaza and Judea and Samaria (making Gaza Judenrein), but it is "racist" to suggest to force 'Palestinians' out of their homes? Why this double standard?

Kahane was no more "racist" than those who suggest that all Jews should be ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria.

By any rational standard, both viewpoints are equally odious.

Back to the original point.

Finkelstein and Sabbah explicitly support terrorism. They explicitly come out in favor of terrorism. Linking to their blogs is saying they have something noteworthy to say. It is an explicit endorsement of them.

To put it another way, if the blog owners of LGF Watch were to run for office, the fact that they link to antisemitic hate mongers would come back to bite them in the ass. This is an explicit endorsement of hate.

LGF Watch has yet to explain its viewpoint on Hezbollah, and why they link to Finkelstein and Sabbah.

As such, they are linked to hate unless and until they make a public pronouncement to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

Red Tulips:

Do you beat your wife?

Anonymous said...

Red Tulips:

PS I'd check the groupthink on this one.....

"Jews are also not a "race."

Red Tulips said...

Anon,

PS I'd check the groupthink on this one.....

"Jews are also not a "race."


Are you saying Jews are a race?

If you are, you will find great company with Nazis and Klansmen.

Anonymous said...

...anyone with any understanding of DNA would know that the Jews are not a race. If you want to claim that then welcome to the reality based community.....I suggest you take that argument over to LGF where the Jewish race argument is taken more seriously.

Dealer said...

In the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Jews are a race so it depends on what side of the pond you stand.

PS Kahane was a racist and a terrorist, if your last argument is this then you're on to a loser. Leave it there. Guilt by association is crappy, but hey if you're going to use it, then your lack of acceptance of the man's racial prejudices against Arabs and his advocation of ethnic cleansing and terrorism will serve the purpose of showing you up to be a hypocrite and an idiot.

Red Tulips said...

Dealer,

Which decision ruled Jews are a 'race'? This goes completely against science.

Where exactly did I say I supported Kahane? I challenge you to find a single statement I ever wrote here or on my blog saying I support Kahane. I said that Kahane was no worse than the alternative philosophy, which is to make Judea and Samaria Judenrein. His philosophy is no more bigoted than that alternative.

And all of this is obscuring the bigger issue, which is that this blog links to those who support terrorism.

This is not merely guilt by association. It is an implicit endorsement of terrorism, unless and until this blog explains why it links to such sites and/or delinks them.

MJ said...

This is not merely guilt by association. It is an implicit endorsement of terrorism, unless and until this blog explains why it links to such sites and/or delinks them.

Ok this is getting silly.

Norman Finkelstein does not endorse terrorism and neither does this blog.

Norman Finkelstein does not endorse a 'final' solution and neither does this blog.

Norman Finkelstein does not believe in Aliens abducting hicks from the southern states and inflicting anal probes upon them (*I hope, I have to be honest I've never asked him) and neither does this blog.

The links section of this blog (especially the Israel/Palestine section) does not endorse the views of groups that certain commenters believe that the 3rd party blogs may/or may not agree with.

One word comes to mind when thinking about RT argument, that word is desperation. If the best argument is that someone who links to someone may or may not agree with one or some of the policies of those who the original commentator thinks are unsuitable...is well idiotic at best...and at worst...disingenuous.

To prove this? Here's Red Tulips.

Linking to these people then shows an implicit support for a Final Solution.

The word IDIOT hardly covers it really.

Red Tulips said...

Norm Finkelstein explicitly endorses Hezbollah. source

Doing so is an explicit endorsement of terror.

Hezbollah explicitly seeks a Final Solution of all Jews. source

This is hardly idle talk, given my friend had to flee for his life from Lebanon, simply because he is Jewish. My friend also witnessed his cousin being tortured to death by Syrian agents, simply because he is Jewish.

You link to this odious personality, who endorses an organization with a goal of Final Solution, and you actually think you can get away with your "stop guilt by association" cockamaney?

If that is what you think, you lose all credibility as a blog. Quit citing LGF comments, which are not even Charles Johnson's own words. You have no right to link to such comments if you claim you do not believe in "guilt by association."

I have a further question for you.

You have yet to explain your opinion on Hezbollah or Final Solution.

Unless and until you do, you are far worse a hater than the one you claim Charles Johnson to be.

MJ said...

Norm Finkelstein explicitly endorses Hezbollah.

Doing so is an explicit endorsement of terror.

Hezbollah explicitly seeks a Final Solution of all Jews


That's the best example of 'guilt by association' ever. Well done.

Is is hardly idle talk, given my friend had to flee for his life from Lebanon, simply because he is Jewish. My friend also witnessed his cousin being tortured to death by Syrian agents, simply because he is Jewish.

Guilt by association not enough? Let's indulge in anecdotal evidence!!! Fun for all the dumb as a f*$K family.

You link to this odious personality, who endorses an organization with a goal of Final Solution, and you actually think you can get away with your "stop guilt by association" cockamaney?

...and back to GBA!!! Magic!

If that is what you think, you lose all credibility as a blog. Quit citing LGF comments, which are not even Charles Johnson's own words. You have no right to link to such comments if you claim you do not believe in "guilt by association."

...and there you betray your own position. The comments of CJ's blog are heavily censored by whom exactly (so much so you can even search comments without membership)? What comments of yours have been edited? What comments of yours have been deleted? None. The only reason there is an approval system here is the fact that certain lizards resorted to posting child porn links.

I have a further question for you.

You have yet to explain your opinion on Hezbollah or Final Solution.

Unless and until you do, you are far worse a hater than the one you claim Charles Johnson to be.


For a final question you seem to be missing a question mark.

But hey what the hell, let me repeat an earlier post, Normal Finkelstein does not endorse terrorism and neither does this blog.

Now please give up, whilst you're not ahead.

Dealer said...

MJ:

Thank you for replying....however I think no matter what you say RT will continue with the pointless argument.

Red Tulips said...

I just linked to a video of Finkelstein saying he supports Hezbollah, and you have the gaul to say he does NOT support Hezbollah???

I just linked to an article which cites Hassan Nasrallah, who said that his goal is to kill every Jew on earth, and you have the haul to say that is NOT the plan???

Sad.

Finkelstein is an academic fraud who supports terrorists and you support this 'person.'

Instead of coming out against Hezbollah and Jew murder, you label Charles Johnson and anyone who opposes you the racist.

Sad, sad indeed.

MJ said...

I just linked to a video of Finkelstein saying he supports Hezbollah, and you have the gaul to say he does NOT support Hezbollah???

I didn't say he didn't support Hezbollah. I said he didn't endorse terrorism. I I'll re-iterate neither do I or anyone who contributes to this blog.

I just linked to an article which cites Hassan Nasrallah, who said that his goal is to kill every Jew on earth, and you have the haul to say that is NOT the plan???

Who's comments are you reading? I never said anything of Nasrallah's plan.

Instead of coming out against Hezbollah and Jew murder, you label Charles Johnson and anyone who opposes you the racist.

Now we're pro Jew murder because we link to someone who supports the political aims of an organisation that is involved in terrorism. That's just demonstrated to everyone how stupid you are and how bizarre your argument is.

I (as one of the contributors here at LGFW) utterly reject your accusation but will not play along with your silly little games.

Red Tulips said...

Uh huh.

Do you actually believe Finkelstein thinks Hezbollah achieves its "political aims" using flowers and puppies? He KNOWS terror is involved and DOESN'T CARE. He hence is SUPPORTING TERROR.

Finkelstein labeled Israeli soldiers Nazis and then claimed he was perplexed why they would be offended by the comparison!

Here is a link which goes through just some of the lies of Finkelstein and his horrible defamations of Israel.

You actually think this 'person' has something noteworthy to say? You actually think this 'person' is worthy of a read?

And then you claim Charles JOHNSON is the hater???

V said...

RT: the judgment of someone who has stated, as you have, that "I hope to visit Eurodhimmiland this winter just to see the Louvre and large parts of Paris prior to it being taken over by Islamists" is dubious at best.

(See? We can play the "deflect and distract" game too!)

Red Tulips said...

V,

Europe, unless it changes, is aiding and abetting Iran getting the bomb. It has a history of terror capitulation. It also is folding demographically to those who are certainly not integrating into the culture at large.

But none of this answers the simple fact that Finkelstein is cool with those whose goal is to wipe out all the Jews on earth.

And that this blog links to such a 'personality,' and when pressed, ridiculously denied Finkelstein's viewpoints, rather than addressing the issue.

I see now that you refuse to even address this issue.

You have hence abdicated any and all right to call anyone a "racist."

Not unless and until you clean up your own shop.

V said...

This coming from someone who is actually making financial decisions based on the belief that the Louvre is about to turn into a mosque -- and very soon, otherwise why would you be in such a hurry to visit Paris this winter?

Perhaps this -- along with your belief that Norman Finkelstein wants a second Holocaust -- makes sense in your world, but in ours it certainly doesn't.

Red Tulips said...

V,

I presented actual evidence that Finkelstein is pro-terror, and you ignore it, shifting the issue.

Sad.

I never said that Europe is going to become Islamic within the next year. However, I have time to take off now, and I may not in 10-15-20 years, when it may have irrevocably changed.

Let's see you explain your way out of the rock-solid evidence I showed concerning Finkelstein's terror support, rather than you shifting the issue yet again.

V said...

"I presented actual evidence that Finkelstein is pro-terror"

You have done no such thing.

"10-15-20 years"

Ah, there's nothing like having the courage of your convictions, is there? Still, you're going to feel pretty silly in 2017 (or 2022 or 2027) when the Louvre has still not been converted into a mosque.

If I were you, I'd be a lot more concerned about the dollar/euro exchange rate.

Red Tulips said...

A video of Finkelstein praising Hezbollah, an organization bent on the destruction of Jews worldwide, is conclusive proof that he supports Hezbollah.

The CAMERA link I provided goes into even greater detail.

Feel free to ignore all this.

But spare the hypocrisy of being "anti-hate" while you are in bed with those who are keen on genocide.

Anonymous said...

but V, why don't you answer directly to what presented to you. that will be great if you stay on topic.

irq1

Anonymous said...

"Now we're pro Jew murder because we link to someone who supports the political aims of an organisation that is involved in terrorism. That's just demonstrated to everyone how stupid you are and how bizarre your argument is."

lol, so if you are supporting the political goal of Nazis for example, you don't become nazi collaborator? and you don't become nazi supporter? wow. the world seems changing. how about if you support the social goals of some criminals? and link to their site that illustrates their crimes? would that be ok too in your opinion?

irq1

Anonymous said...

lol, so if you are supporting the political goal of Nazis for example, you don't become nazi collaborator?

That's not what's been argued. RT states that this site is pro-Jew murder for linking to Finkelstein.

Anonymous said...

"but V, why don't you answer directly to what presented to you. that will be great if you stay on topic."

The topic of this post is the stupidity of LGF'ers. Whilst I understand RT is helping to prove this, his/her silly little games are not the topic.

Steven said...

Hi all. :-)

There are lots of things I would like to comment on, but to start with I want to refer to what Dealer wrote to Red Tulips at 11/08/2007 08:09:00 PM.

Dealer, you linked to a website to explain that Guilty by Association was a logical fallacy, however in doing so you were misrepresenting Red Tulips argument - which is an logical fallacy in itself known as a "Straw Man Argument".

Let me explain your error.

Red Tulips did not state that what LGF Watch writes is false due to their association with Finkelstein. What she wrote was that LGF Watch's decision to link to his material shows that they wish to be associated with his words. Finklestein is a Holocaust revisionist and supports a terrorist organisation which has the explicit goal of genocide against Jews, therefore LGF Watch's decision to associate itself with such a website makes its claims of being an "anti-Hate" site rather baseless.

In that same comment you posted yet another Straw Man Argument:
"There are a lot of people who appreciate LGFW and what they do, and frankly labelling them as anti-Semites and holocaust deniers because they link to somebody who may support an organisation which is anti-Semitic is desperate in the extreme."

If you look back you will see that Red Tulips did not say that anyone who supports LGF Watch are anti-Semites and Holocaust deniars.-

When someone claims to be a logician, they should really use logical rational thought rather than use misleading manipulative propaganda techniques. You have just shattered your credibility.

Steven said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven said...

Next, I wish to comment on the fact that the links posted on Red Tulip's website are entirely irrelevant side-stepping.

Trying to change the subject of focus (in this case, away from LGF Watch's association with Finklestein) is another technique people use when they are unable to deal with he topic at hand.

The Culture For All blog is not an "anti-Hate" blog, LGF Watch states that it is. When a self-advertised "anti-Hate" website chooses to associate itself with a hate site it shows gross hypocrisy at best.

Buhler said...

If you look back you will see that Red Tulips did not say that anyone who supports LGF Watch are anti-Semites and Holocaust deniars.

Umm, he said...

As far as LGF Watch goes, by linking to the group, you are claiming an affiliation. You are explicitly saying that Finky, who supports a group with a goal of Final Solution, is worth reading. So yes. That does mean "guilt by association.

So he explicitly says that by linking to Norm Finkelstein then LGFW are affiliated with Hezbollah, who are anti-Semites and holocaust deniers.

Nice to see your up on the meaning of logic, pity you're not as good on reading comprehension.

Try reading what RT has been writing.

Anonymous said...

Finklestein is a Holocaust revisionist

That's a disgusting slur and you know it.

Dealer said...

Perhaps you should read RT's argument closer. He/She is using a classic case of guilt by association.

LGFW links to Finkelstein, Finkelstein supports Hezbollah, Hezbollah are anti-Semites and holocaust deniers.

If the purpose of RT's posts weren't to 'expose' LGFW as anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, why the demands for LGFW to deny it?

Red Tulips said...

Dealer,

Perhaps you cannot actually read the English language.

LGF Watch is guilty of hypocrisy. It claims to be "anti-hate," but in fact is promoting hate through linking to hate sites.

When you link to a site you are promoting it. Hence, this site promotes hate.

Finkelstein says that maybe 6 million did not die in the Holocaust, and Holocaust studies need to be done some more, to see what really happened.

This is the essence of Holocaust revisionism.

It is sad and sick to read those who claim to be against hate to be defending a man (Finkelstein) who is a supporter of those who wish to annhilate Jews. (and he is, he is a very public Hezbollah supporter)

But I guess it's all okay, right? It's only Jews, so Jewish life doesn't count, right? Never mind the Hezbollah attack against US Marines in 1983, and attacks on US troops in Iraq right now.

*adopts your way of thinking now*

Because, really, "who are we" to decry a terror organization with a goal of Final Solution? We are no better than they are! Actually, we're worse!

Sad and sick. And you then claim LGF are a bunch of hate mongers?!?!?!?!

He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Steven said...

Hi Buhler,

In your last comment to me you posted a quote by me:
"If you look back you will see that Red Tulips did not say that anyone who supports LGF Watch are anti-Semites and Holocaust deniars."

Misrepresented it entirely:
"Umm, he said...
As far as LGF Watch goes, by linking to the group, you are claiming an affiliation. You are explicitly saying that Finky, who supports a group with a goal of Final Solution, is worth reading. So yes. That does mean "guilt by association."

And then attacked the misrepresentation of my argument:
"So he explicitly says that by linking to Norm Finkelstein then LGFW are affiliated with Hezbollah, who are anti-Semites and holocaust deniers."

You then decided to add an ad-hominem attack against me, which is another logical fallacy:
"Nice to see your up on the meaning of logic, pity you're not as good on reading comprehension.

Try reading what RT has been writing."

This is a beautiful example of a Straw Man argument. You, like Dealer, have just destroyed your credibility.

Next...

Steven said...

My computer is currently suffering some problems... so I will be back later.

Take care.

Steve J. said...

lgf is a joke website anyway.

No use giving them publicity, i have read the comments and they sound ubbelievably brain washed and retarded its not even Funny.


You should've seen it a couple of years, befoer Charles booted some really wacko regulars.