Quote Of The Day

However, I have learned (to my dismay) that many of the people who portray themselves as "anti-jihad" are simply paranoid bigots, and/or religious fanatics with hidden motives, who have hitched a ride on the justifiable outrage most of us felt after the 9/11 attacks.

Charles Johnson, blogger and incredibly slow learner.

Link

Global Warming Fun

The lizard army is chuckling its collective arse off at the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of scientists and ecologists saying that global warming is indeed a human-made problem that'll have a large impact on our future.

Now regardless whether you believe in global warming or not, it should strike you as odd that in this recent thread, (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32234_Obamas_Science_Leaders) one of the prime arguments in the comment section against global warming, despite the fact that it's freaking winter, must've been the instant classic: "Oh look, it's snowing outside. Global warming is bunk". If I didn't know better, I'd look around my apartment, observe the lack of other humans, and conclude that I'm one of a kind, if I were to follow this tragic line of trashy logic.

Then the lizard tyrant shot himself in the foot with his latest post:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32235_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Debate

The three YouTube videos in that thread should cause your jaw to involuntarily hit the floor or your head to bang repeatedly against the next wall for the sheer dishonesty displayed by Martin Durkin, producer of the documentary "The great global warming swindle" and representative of polemics the lizards are so vehemently clinging to. The part where he gets to defend his own film is literally anywhere between funny and torturous.

Go ahead and watch them if you're feeling adventurous, and give yourself a laugh or two at a group of people not even capable of noticing how excruciatingly bad this man performs, proven by the lack of comments questioning Chuckles' reason for finding this sad excuse of a skeptic - of all people - to present to the world, a scenario oddly reminiscent of their ongoing drooling at a certain female vice president candidate who boasted on how geographic location is a main credential for foreign policy experience.

---

"Ignorance is strength" - Eric "George Orwell" Blair, 1984

".. but they don't hate Muslims!"

If you've been following LGF Watch and its comments for a while, you'll have heard from a few people that the lizard army doesn't hate Muslims as people, but rather only terrorists. Also you get a cock-and-bull story about how the lizard army is only waiting eagerly for the "silent moderate" Muslims to renounce violence and fight terrorism, so that the little green sheep squad's views of roughly a fifth of the world's population can improve. This claim is endorsed by the likes of Robert Spencer, and some of the sad excuses of LGF apologists we get here every now and then.

Bullsh*t.

Visit this brilliant (heh..) epic analysis of Chuckles on an article about Indian Muslims renouncing terrorism and vowing to fight against it. (And it's not the first time that has happened):

(Link: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30353_Breaking-_Indian_Muslims_Commit_to_Fighting_Terrorism/ )

Breaking: Indian Muslims Commit to Fighting Terrorism
But you just know there’s a catch, and as usual it comes down to the remarkably flexible definition of “terrorism,” and the need to shift the blame: Muslims commit themselves to fight terrorism.

The comments on the thread are (not surprisingly) skeptical of this, accusing these Muslims of meaning something else by "terrorism", e.g. 'terrorism committed against them'.

Well if you read the last bit of the original article:

Qazmi earlier told IANS that there was no place for terrorism in Islam. 'Individual Muslims involved in acts of terrorism should be dealt with under the law. Why should the whole community or religion be smeared and given a tag?'

.. and ask yourself for which kind of terrorism Islam has been smeared and given a tag for, there's no room left for ambiguity. All this doesn't matter for the little green army of idjits, who won't let anything take away their justification and desire for making 1.5 billion people into scapegoats for all the world's misery.

Wingnuts eagerly waiting for a positive Muslim voice. I repeat: Bullsh*t.

Instant LGF classics

Behold lizards massively biting themselves in the tails. It all started when CJ whined about "Children on crack" at Digg.com attacking his poor website, and that included.. that's right.. the rather old Digg entry of LGF Watch! (link: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30336_Now_at_Digg-_Children_on_Crack )

Here we go again at Digg.com: Digg - LGF Watch - Keeping an eye on those rabid racists at Little Green Footballs.

But wait! There’s more: Digg / lgfuckballs.

Complain to Digg about this ongoing abuse of their site at: abuse@digg.com.

Apparently Chuckie wasn't capable of realizing that the LGF Watch entry has been submitted over 1.5 years ago, otherwise he wouldn't be saying "Here we go again". Notice how the entry has been infested with lizards trying to have some fun.

But that's not all, the comments that ensued on that thread are just hilarious..

#55 Sharmuta

You know- when you have nothing better to do with your time than stalk a website, you might really want to consider therapy.

Uh-huh..

#56 Charles

They've been doing it for years. And they've also registered numerous accounts at LGF, and tried to pose as friends of the site until they're exposed and blocked. It's beyond insane. I suspect that there is money behind this.

If you scroll waaay down the main LGF Watch page:

"Do you want to advertise on LGF Watch and help a good cause? All revenue is donated to The International Red Cross (CDN$525 so far...)"

Beside that, no.. we're not getting any money for this. Speaking about money..

#60 JammieWearingFool

It's quite pathetic.

There's also some loser out there who calls his site Instaputz, and he obsesses over Glenn Reynolds.

Seriously, you have to have no talent whatsoever to just sit around and blog other people's material.

Right, because when Charles isn't busy "stalking" the Obama website, he is most certainly not grabbing other peoples' material and adding only 7 or 8 words of original content. No sir, Chuckles is very talented indeed.

#143 Charles
If there isn't money behind the stalkers, they're even crazier than I thought.

It's called not-trying-to-make-profit-at-the-expense-of-others. Speaks volumes that this d00d thinks it's crazy.

#176 swamprat

re: #143 Charles

Your very first obtuse post. Get a cup of coffee. They are nuts. And very angry at a blog that points out the warts and pimples adorning their positions and beliefs.

Hang on, I thought this relationship worked the other way round.

#188 JeremyR

re: #143 Charles

Charles, you have posted stuff against the Obamination. That makes you fair game for Soros and fiends. You also take well aimed shots at the Religion of pieces, which makes you the enemy of 1 billion fanatics and fanatic supporters.

Only a lizard will tell you that 1 billion Muslims are fanatics or support fanatics. (LGFers aren't anti-Muslim, nooo..). Funny that I don't feel like one..

Just another day out at LGF..

Beware the Paisley Intifada

Pharyngula, the science blogger, gets the whole scarf issue right. He remarks;

But she is wearing a scarf, and as we all know, good Americans wear only traditional American clothes, which do not include scarves.

It's amazing that such a trivial issue gets blown up out of all proportion by the shrieking heads of the right wing blogosphere.

The most alarming fact he comments on however is that the scarf has a paisley design. Now far be it for me to point out the problem there and not being an expert on Palestinian couture, unlike a certain Californian blogger, but I've never seen terrorists draped in paisley.

From the comfort of their homes

Charles is boiling in rage about a Daily Kos diary talking about how America needs to feel the damage inflicted on Iraq by getting "invaded" and "occupied".

It should be noted that LGF Watch doesn't support the idea that America should be invaded or occupied, however the reactions at the little green loony bin are just rich:

#12 looking closely
I hear Al Queda in Iraq is still looking for recruits.
Maybe this diarist ought to volunteer.

To address the thin gruel of his post, the Iraqis *WANT* the US military to be there. So why should we leave?

Actually, no. They don't.

#16 Bubblehead II
re: #4 phoenixgirl

Mexico. It's already happening, The invasion, the war torn streets, the destruction of entire neighborhoods, ect.

Of course it's totally obvious that the destruction those darn mexicuns are causing all over America, even in a neighborhood near you, is legitimately comparable with the carpet-bombing of Iraqi cities during the invasion, in which a few tens of thousands have died, especially that loads of Mexicans are productive members of American society and taking up jobs that even the lizardoid army would refuse to do. Can I get a "Nuke Mexico!" now?

#30 galloping granny
re: #17 JamesTKirk

Can we start with Berkeley?

As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants Berkeley is welcome to it. Glad to hand it over. Might even pay somebody to take it. What a waste of oxygen that crew is. They spout enough hot air to be responsible for "global warming" all by themselves!

No comment needed.

#50 zmdavid
We need someone to come, kill all the violent terrorists in our country and rebuild our infrastructure at no cost to us?
I'm all for it.

Great, and I'm sure that the millions of Iraqi civilians who have lost innocent family members and are leading this kind of dandy life regard all of that as "no cost". Nice, eh?

#67 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey
We don't know what it's like to be in a war zone, prick? There were war zones in lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania on 9/11/01. Just don't question their patriotism.
/SPIT

Sure, 9/11 was bad enough, but comparing this one-time incident with a since-5-years-unresolved and ongoing conflict that has taken a few hundred-fold more lives and a much greater toll on the lives of the remaining population is a bit dishonest, no?
Now, in response to the Berkeley remark:

#77 samsgran1948
re: #30 galloping granny

But you need to make sure that the People's Republic of San Francisco is included with Berkeley.

.. and don't you dare call them racist!

And on and on it goes. It's not as if they were really opposed to the Iraq war either. Deskchair warrior-ism at its best!

Simple question, simple answer

LGFW is always happy to answer any little question Charles Johnson throws out on to the interweb. Here's his latest post attacking Juan Cole (not the first time by the way).

Anti-American professor Juan Cole has rather famously claimed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “misquoted” in his infamous “Israel must be wiped off the map” statement. Search Google for that phrase and you’ll find tons of lefty and Islamist web sites eagerly promoting Cole’s obfuscation.

So how will the malevolent Juan Cole and his useful idiot followers explain this?

Well Charles, where shall we begin?

1. You assert that Juan Cole claimed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was 'misquoted'. You're correct he did, and as Juan can actually speak and read Farsi (he's translates works in Arabic too) I'd take his word above yours.

2. By implication you're claiming that Ahmadinejad wasn't misquoted even though anyone able to read English would be able to see that the poster you use as 'proof' attributes the quote to Imam Khomeini, not Ahmadinejad.

3. Here's Juan Cole's take on the translation of Ahmadinejad's speech.

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

4. So in answer to your question Charles, easily.

5. Charles Johnson calls Juan Cole malevolent. Bonus points for projection.

No Comment Needed

Sometimes, the bigoted swamp that is the LGF comments section even takes us by surprise. This following comment is a perfect example.

#11 ProUSA 12/17/2007 2:36:19 pm PST

The left can claim most of what is wrong in this country. Only the LLL would hope for death of other Americans (who have differing political views). Yet, they oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers.

As the post title states, we believe no comment is needed here.

Via The Sphinx in the comments.

Charles Johnson's Enormous Problem

September 6th

Osama Bin Dead: Still Talking

The SITE Institute says a new video is coming from Osama bin Laden, but I expect more old footage recut to look new. I remain 97.33% convinced that bin Laden’s been dead for a long time.

September 7th

Osama Bin Laden: A Chomsky Fan

[…]

By the way, I still believe there’s a good chance he’s dead, although my level of certainty has declined a bit with this new video.

What is it now 97.21% Charles? Tell us it ain't true!?

Source: Sadly No!

Desperate for hits?

First it was digg.com, now Wikipedia (so much so it's now called Wiki-Gate in wingnut world).

Who'll be next on the list for Charles Johnson and swivel-eyed loons online jihad?

PS As noted below, the Iraq War's deadliest bombings killed 500, but nice to see Chuckie has the big controversy in his sights.