Little Green Footballs

Monday, May 12, 2008

Twisting news around

CJ is certainly well-known (almost notorious) for his achingly long articles that strike everything right to the point and sport a magical kind of honesty and informativity hardly seen elsewhere on the intertubes.

Take his last 18-word epos:

In this piece he was quoting an even more massive 25-word article from YNet News in its entirety, something almost never observed anywhere amongst quotes from the lizard king.

And now you can go ahead and search for any inconsistencies between the two pieces. In other words: Guess which statement Chuckles pulled out of his own derrière (which his little green sheep squad gladly swallowed):

The Arab League has condemned Hizballah for using weapons.

Because they weren’t using those weapons to kill Jews. (<- Could it be this one? Hm.. - ed.)
"The Arab League condemned Hizbullah for using its weapons within Lebanese territory. The League’s foreign ministers who gathered in Cairo, called for an immediate ceasefire."


Anonymous said...

He didn't quote, he usually puts these kind of opinions before the quote, and there is no quotation mark, so what's your point?

If you are asking if there is reference by the Arab leagues to Charles statement, here it is:

"within Lebanese territory"

So what does the Arab league means by that? It is ok to use Hizbullah weapons against Israel or any other nation? Why not calling on Hizbullah to disarm and re-in in the political life of Lebanon.

The Sphinx said...

My point being, he takes a shred of news, adds an opinion based on nothing but his own wishful thinking.

Seems for Chuckles, the Arab League is guilty because they're just the Arab League. Some journalist..

Anonymous said...

Sphinx, you haven't really addressed Anonymous's points.

One, it's obvious to any semi-regular reader of LGF that the "added" line was commentary.

Two, what DOES the Arab League mean? Are they only opposed to Hizbullah's violence when it isn't directed toward the destruction of Israel? Do you not see how an observer on the sidelines might arrive at such a conclusion?

If you dispute CJ's interpretation, then refute it with facts rather than empty sarcasm.


The Sphinx said...

So do _you_ think it was wrong for the Arab League to condemn Hezbollah for using violence?

I thought that condemning violence was obviously doing the right thing, no matter where it comes from. But in CJ's world, the Arab League (and Arabs in general) better not be doing anything right, because it'd contradict the propaganda machine he's running that makes people believe that Arabs = Vampires.

So when he throws in such a useless (and false) comment, it implies that they were urging Hezbollah to go fire at someone else, which they certainly did not. Do you see the rabid manipulation effort here?

A classic case of "They're always wrong, even if they're right".

The Sphinx said...

And regarding this: "Two, what DOES the Arab League mean?"

Chuckles obviously couldn't be arsed to find an answer for that question himself, jumping to his smear-o-matic assumptions because it's most convenient for him and his drooling worshipers. It's that simple.

Anonymous said...

No, Sphinx, the point isn't that the AL is condemning Hizbollah's violence within Lebanon. It's that the AL has been so silent about so much violence directed towards Israel.

I thought CJ's point was obvious, but maybe it wasn't. It is this: isn't it ironic that the AL, which it various times has denied Israel's right to exist and sanctioned war with Israel, now is issuing a proclamation against violence?

So the point isn't that the AL "is always wrong, even when it's right." It's, "why now have they seen fit to condemn Hizbollah's violent acts?"

The irony goes even further. "He's always wrong, even when he's right" would be a perfect motto for this blog. For every LGF article you or your colleagues blog, there have got to be a dozen that you pass over with comment. If CJ is in the right on any of those other dozen articles, you'll never see him get credit for it here. "He's always wrong, even when he's right." And lately, it seems like half the posts from your colleagues are hypotheses not about what CJ does write, but what he doesn't write. So, given the modus operandi around here, it should seem entirely normal to you that CJ is blogging about what the AL hasn't done. "He's always wrong, even when he's right."

The Sphinx said...

Anonymous, I have to leave now, so I'll get to the rest of your points later, but about Charles Johnson being "wrong, even when he's right" according to this blog: That's just not true. (Also notice the comments, the second one being my own).

Will get back to you later.

The Sphinx said...

So, I'm back.

"I thought CJ's point was obvious, but maybe it wasn't. It is this: isn't it ironic that the AL, which it various times has denied Israel's right to exist and sanctioned war with Israel, now is issuing a proclamation against violence?"

With Egypt and Jordan for example having signed peace treaties with Israel and maintaining diplomatic ties, as well as Saudi Arabia promoting new steps in the peace process, amongst other examples, you can hardly say that the Arab League is all bent on Israel's annihilation.

Now if you look at the comments on the thread in question, you will see exactly how the lizards swallow this type of statement as a 'fact' that the Arab League were whining that it wasn't Jews being attacked, and that Arabs/Muslims are bloodthirsty ghouls that just can't live without killing (Comments #6, #10, #28, #29, #42, #44, .. I didn't care to go on). Fully regardless of what you think Charles was implying (And I don't think he was thinking that differently), this is what he's actively breeding on his website, which is the whole point of this post.

But is he always wrong? I showed you an example of how this blog applauded him for standing up to what's wrong before, contrary to what you claimed, and here's another one:

" 'Ethelred' (notice how all these brave anti-jihad warriors all use phony names) was banned from LGF for posting comments saying Islam should be declared illegal and all Muslims deported. And he was warned that I wouldn't allow that kind of idiocy here."

Another case of him saying exactly what he should, which made me still have some faith that he might not be the bigot I thought he was.

So there's no such thing as a person who's always wrong, the problem with Charles though is that most of the time he's simply a raging hypocrite.