One of our loyal readers points out the glaring hypocrisy of LGF ridiculing peace activists in a picture at the top of the site (and implying that not only are they in league with terrorists, but will also be blown up by a green football) and Charles Johnson then throwing a fit when Hamas murder peace protesters.
As our enigmatic reader says, look at this quote by Chuckles:
"Imagine the sustained outrage that would pour out of the media if Israel had done something like this. But Hamas murders peaceful demonstrators, and it doesn’t even rate a footnote in the wire service reports."
Let's turn the roles around here. Substitute the words "the media" with "LGF", "Israel" with "Muslims", and "Hamas" with an arbitrary non-Muslim terrorist group, then "wire service reports" with "LGF" again. Looks familiar now, doesn't it..
And lets not forget the glee with which LGF celebrated the death of Rachel Corrie...
9 comments:
Are you saying that LGF is no better than "the media" or that "the media" are no better than LGF.
I would think that the point is that terrorism is only terrorism if Charles can connect it to Islam in some way, that Chuckie can't really be bothered to see the world in more than a few colours - all those 'Asian' people under the green banner of Islam, and him and those loyal to Bush under the red, white and blue.
Anything more complicated gives him headaches, so I'm wondering if he needs a copy of the paint-it-yourself atlas we proposed, along with the Pew and global reports analysis which showed that more Americans than muslims approved of attacks on civilians...
I think u-c's obtuseness is merely reflective of his or her agenda - you know, the "might makes right" agenda. But, but, but don't you DARE call him or her a "fascist."
In any event, it seems pretty clear that Chuckles and his band of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers are seconds away from adopting their own reality, since those pesky things called verifiable facts keep fucking up their justifications and rationales for perpetuating their ideologically pure bullshit.
In short, give it a few weeks, they will just break down and say it: if we do or advocate X, X is good, if the other side does the same thing, X is bad. Period. That's what they believe already, any way, but they've just been strugging to forumulate some sort of intellectually consistent and honest means of expressing their insanity - with little to no success, obviously.
Hypocrisy, on LGF, never....
Always love the torture debates over there. One group argues that there has never been torture, its just hazing, the other group argues that since they are just a bunch of brown people, torture the f*ck out of them. Watching the 2 groups collide is like watching ADD children throwing food at each other.
Use of direct substitution one noun for another (eg. "the media" for "LGF") traditionally used to portray equivalency.
Legalize fails to understand that facism, like communism, has so far proved itself to be an enfeebling form of governance. It does not fit as well as liberal democracy within a might makes right paradigm.
"Legalize fails to understand that facism, like communism, has so far proved itself to be an enfeebling form of governance. It does not fit as well as liberal democracy within a might makes right paradigm."
Astounding. It's almost as if you've never read a word on what is considered "fascism." Militarism for the sake of the expression of power is pretty much near the top of any sensible observer's definition of "fascism." And anyone with any sense should also realize that "might makes right" is pretty much 180 degrees from any political system resembling "liberal democracy." Seriously, what's the matter with you?
Ah, the death of irony.
Facism found expression in several states in the 1930-40s, these states fought a war (a contest of militaristic might) which they lost. It is not possible to state that might makes right and back a system that has empirically proven to be less mighty. Facism's focus on militaristic power at the expense of other expressions has been less effective than liberal democracy's free expression.
"...anyone with any sense should also realize that "might makes right" is pretty much 180 degrees from any political system resembling "liberal democracy.""
Something to ponder - liberal democracies form the mightiest of todays nations. How can this be so? Is this the rebirth of irony?
"Facism found expression in several states in the 1930-40s, these states fought a war (a contest of militaristic might) which they lost. It is not possible to state that might makes right and back a system that has empirically proven to be less mighty."
By no means am I suggesting that you are making a sensible argument vis-a-vis your worship of military prowess for its own sake. You're still taking that position. Just because the fascists of the 1930s and 40s failed militarily, does not mean that (a) you are not advocating the same position they advocated, or (b) political ideology caused their defeat. Military conflicts are not one because one side expresses the correct ideology; military conflicts are won because the people collectively decide that the conflict is necessary to sustain their way of life. In other words, liberal democrats understand that war is a terrible thing that is sometimes unfortunately necessary. You, on the other hand, argue that war is a virtuous thing that must be prosecuted because to NOT do so would be to (a) deny your own alleged might, and to (b) recognize that other people have a right to their existence.
"Something to ponder - liberal democracies form the mightiest of todays nations. How can this be so? Is this the rebirth of irony?"
No, nothing to ponder, beyond the famous answer to a question that was never asked. Liberal democracies are premised on fairness, equality, due process, and the rule of law - unless over 200 years of American history has been horribly misinterpreted. Nazi Germany, Impirial Japan, and Fascist Italy were states premised on the idea that their military might meant that they could enslave, rape, murder, and steal from those weaker and poorer than them; they were granted this right by virtue of their moral superiority - your argument.
"Liberal democrats" tend to be opposed to such behavior, you know, by defintion - again, I've been reading James Madison upside down and backards all these years.
"Military conflicts are not one because one side expresses the correct ideology; military conflicts are won because the people collectively decide that the conflict is necessary to sustain their way of life."
The collective will of people is but factor in a conflict, a favorite of the flawed facist & communist collectivist ideologies.
Other factors include numbers, technology and adaptability. Numbers relies upon how friendly an ideology is to potential allies. Technology is driven by a society with an essentially free thinking ideology. Adaptability in all things including leadership personnel is a feature of democracy, lacking in other forms of governance.
Liberal democarcies understand that to be a liberal democracy requires defence of these values in the face of ideologies that are opposed. Thus war is an unfortunate necessity to be taken at times. Liberal democracies are premised upon universal "fairness, equality, due process, and the rule of law". There is no exceptional clause for dictators and preisthoods, even if they claim that it is by the will of G_d that they rule.
The might (a by-product of liberal democracy) is used to bring rights of justice, fairness & equality to all. If the exploiters can be convinced to move quietly out of power by the use of soft might that is good, but if they resist confrontation is inevitable.
Post a Comment