Pam Geller is throwing a typical hissy fit in her latest Worldnutdaily screed. This time it’s because the terrorist-loving media quoted James Lafferty accurately after he made the bizarre statement that he was proud that his neighbors in the South had bombed multiple mosques.
I have been organizing events at CPAC since I first brought Geert Wilders to the conservative confab back in 2009, but this was our most powerful one yet. The only coverage of our landmark event in defense of freedom, however, was from the anti-freedom, pro-jihad left. Islamic supremacists and their quisling apologists in the leftist media immediately tried to twist the meaning of remarks by one of our speakers, James Lafferty. They accused Lafferty, founder and chairman of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, of applauding the destruction of mosques. Lafferty set the record straight in a statement he sent me: “I do not condone or encourage any criminal act or vandalism against any mosque. I am a firm believer in the rule of law and the protections our Constitution provides for the free exercise of religion – and that means all religions.”
Let’s look at what Lafferty actually said:
Well with what the gentleman was saying about the Justice Department, I went to the briefing, the hate crimes summit, and I went there and it was all Muslim officials speaking and they had all these pictures of some mosque somewhere, and it was usually in the South I’m proud to say where a guy would drive a pickup truck right into the mosque.
How unfair of the anti-freedom, pro-jihad left to quote him accurately! No one accused him of applauding the destruction of mosques, he flat out said he was proud of people who destroyed mosques. There isn’t the slightest ambiguity in what he said.
As for his claim to support the free exercise of religion, he is lying. He was one of the people who worked to deny Muslims the right to build mosques in New York City, Tennessee and in his own state of Virginia. It’s all right there on his blog.
55 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
frankboyd
February 17, 2012 at 1:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s all true – Geller’s a crackpot, certainly. Vide her republication of that “Obama’s the lovechild of Malcolm X” thing (you do owe it to yourself to read her ‘explanation’ of that incident, by the by).
The trouble is that she’s also one of the few people to get into the confrontation with the Islamic ultra-right seriously. That means, and you’d better get used to it, that she will have more clout and more influence than, say, this blog. I realise that this is because of the utter farce that the American “left” is, but that doesn’t change matters.
Taz
February 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
All Lafferty was saying is that he’s proud of some mosque’s handicap parking spaces.
heironymous
February 17, 2012 at 1:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Any chance of a Streisand effect here?
I mean, it’s clear that Geller is lying. It’s clear what Lafferty said. But very few people paid attention to it the first time, but her repeating it may magnify its effect.
d cwilson
February 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This statement becomes meaningless once you remember that Lafferty considers Islam to be a political movement, not a religion, and wants to the laws changed to reflect that.
nmcc
February 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Great post, Ed.
In a post on a previous thread, I was a little critical of you.
The more I read your comments, the more I like what I read.
One question, though, give or take a word or two, are you sure those quotations weren’t lifted directly from Richard Dawkins’ increasingly cultish website? I’ve no idea who Pam Geller and James Lafferty are, but I get the distinct impression that, taken in isolation, Richard Dawkins would be their greatest supporter.
KG
February 17, 2012 at 2:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s because most people other than demagogues and idiots (among whom, I am sorry to say, quite a few are atheists) have the brains to see that the Islamic ultra-right are a minor irritation, not a serious threat – this is true in Europe, let alone in the USA. Their public support in the USA is so near zero I doubt you could measure it statistically, and the terrorists who form a minority even within this small minority have had very few and minor successes since 9/11.
abb3w
February 17, 2012 at 2:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, I suppose there could be the slightest ambiguity if Lafferty was a damn Yankee who was proud it was mainly the South that was that barbaric.
However, DC isn’t exactly Connecticut.
Tobinius
February 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
nmcc says:
I can’t help wondering what makes you think this (admittedly, I don’t follow Dawkins’ website)?
d cwilson
February 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If by that you mean attacking all Muslims and insinuating that every Muslim is a potential terrorist.
Ed Brayton
February 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
nmcc wrote:
Can you explain why you think that? Does Dawkins believe that Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques or emigrate to the United States (or to his own country)? Does he believe that it’s okay to commit violence against them? Has he said anything at all to suggest those things?
Chiroptera
February 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frankboyd, #1: That means, and you’d better get used to it, that she will have more clout and more influence than, say, this blog.
Right. You know what this reminds me of? When “John Adams” kept popping in her (or at the incarnation at ScienceBlogs) to taunt us how “the people” were going wise up to the foreign born Kenyan ursurper in the White House and rise up. Anyone else remember that?
This clown answers (a) to all the questions on the multiple choice exam. On a few, the answer does happen to be (a). For that she gets credit and more clout?
Yeah, in the US that is probably true. But that speaks far more to the basic ignorance and stupidity of the American people than it does to any credibility Geller has “earned.”
Chiroptera
February 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“kept popping in here”
This isn’t that kind of movie!
nmcc
February 17, 2012 at 4:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“I can’t help wondering what makes you think this (admittedly, I don’t follow Dawkins’ website)?”
Well, to be frank, I’d rather that you did follow Dawkins’ website. That way you’d know whether I was right or wrong in my comment.
There’s a whole history – if you consider 4 years or so as ‘history’, that is – behind my comment.
Suffice to say – in my opinion – that a once great ‘melting pot’ of contending views is now little more than an rd.net appreciation society.
I’ll give you specifics, if you are really interested.
Chiroptera
February 17, 2012 at 4:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
nmcc, #13: Well, to be frank, I’d rather that you did follow Dawkins’ website.
Why? What relevance does this have to Geller and Lafferty? Those are the people who this thread is about, not Dawkins.
curtcameron
February 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t know what the context was, but from the info Ed gave, I can imagine a situation where his statement was just a clumsily-worded way of saying the opposite of what it appears. Maybe he was trying to say something like “it was usually in the South, not in the North I’m proud to say, where a guy would drive a pickup truck right into the mosque.”
nmcc
February 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed, in regard to the first quotation, Dawkins would not disagree one iota with that.
As far as the second quotation is concerned, yes, Dawkins would make a big thing about opposing violence. But then, it’s only a particular kind of violence Dawkins is opposed to. He’s not opposed to the violence advocated by his late hero, Christopher Hitchens, for example. Dawkins, like Hitchens, is an apologist for violence – at a distance. To give Hitchens his due, he made no bones about it, and was an open advocate of violence. Dawkins is just a – rather feeble – disembler when it comes to violence.
BobApril
February 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@nmcc – “I’ll give you specifics, if you are really interested.”
Yes, please.
BobApril
February 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rats, I should have re-loaded before posting. Nmcc, by specifics, I think many of us are looking for actual quotes, rather than just your assertions of what Dawkins means.
nmcc
February 17, 2012 at 4:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I suppose I should point out that I have recently been banned from commenting on Dawkins’ website, just in case any of his flock should read my comments on here and shout ‘sour grapes’.
Though, I should equally point out, that my excommunication was not based on any infraction of Dawkins’ website rules, but was, in fact, based on my comments on other websites.
A kind of banishment for ‘thought-crime’, don’t you think? The two comments I made on the thread I was banned from were left in place (because they were within Dawkins’ Beria inspired rules), but I was immediately banned, nonetheless.
And this from someone who worships at the shrine of the late Christopher Hitchens.
Bronze Dog
February 17, 2012 at 4:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’d also like to express bafflement about why Dawkins was even mentioned. What’s Dawkins got to do with this?
Anyway, lots of people misrepresent Dawkins and his stances on issues. They’re typically parroting a lie or a quote mine made up by a fundie.
So, yes. Direct quotes in context, please.
shygetz
February 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@nmcc–”I suppose I should point out that I have recently been banned from commenting on Dawkins’ website, just in case any of his flock should read my comments on here and shout ‘sour grapes’.”
Based on your comments here, I’m not terribly surprised they banned you. Because here, you take a thread about Pam Gellar’s defense of James Lafferty, and turn it into “Isn’t it so unfair that I was banned at Richard Dawkins’ website!?!”
I, for one, would appreciate it if we could discuss matters at least tangentially related to the post.
nmcc
February 17, 2012 at 5:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Okay, some fair comments. But it’s necessary to follow who is saying what, and in relation to what.
My comments are in relation to Ed’s post, and follow on from that. Sometimes, especially on a blog like this, you have to do a wee bit of thinking to connect this with that.
shygetz
February 17, 2012 at 5:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve done a wee bit of thinking…possibly quite more than that. And I still cannot see how Richard Dawkins is even tangentially connected to Pam Gellar and James Lafferty. And, despite numerous requests, you have yet to link the two with anything more concrete than your assertion that they all happen to be intolerant jerks. So please, just let it go and get back on topic.
Chiroptera
February 17, 2012 at 5:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Most people around here know that I love trolls. I love to rattle their cages and watch them shriek and jump up and down. I think it’s cute when they think they are doing logic and reason. One of the big draws to the comment sections of blogs are the trolls.
That said, sometimes a particular troll is just so boring and uninteresting that even I, uncharacteristically, will say that maybe it’s better off to ignore them.
laurentweppe
February 17, 2012 at 5:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If I understand correctly, nmcc ran into trouble with a pro-Geller fraction of Dawkins’ readership. That racists would try to coat their biggotry with Dawkins’ often blunt rhetoric is hardly a scoop, as it is that some gnus tend to drag their feet when it comes to publicly aknowledge that biggots walk in their midst.
nmcc
February 17, 2012 at 6:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, for goodness sake! Here’s a potted version of the thing:
Ed posts and includes a couple of comments from some American religious loon.
I say that the first comment wouldn’t be out of place on RD.net. The inference being that there are different kinds of loon.
Ed asks me whether Richard Dawkins would support the kind of violent ravings on display in his quotation.
I explain how Dawkins, indirectly (i.e. his genuflection towards Hitchens, for example) would do exactly that.
Ed says nothing. And then the inevitable accusations of ‘troll’
Is that not a fair summation of the ‘discussion’?
The point being, of course, that it isn’t only loons of the religious variety that we have to guard against. Richard Dawkins being a prime example.
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
February 17, 2012 at 6:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@26:
Seems to me there’s a reason the accusations of “troll” are inevitable.
Michael Heath
February 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
nmcc:
Evidence, King Evidence; let’s see some linked cites. I for one think you’re full of shit. I and most of us in here are perfectly cognizant of Hitchen’s arguments and Dawkins’ sometimes sloppy rhetoric that provides an opportunity for liars to misrepresent some of his arguments.
Ed Brayton
February 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
nmcc wrote:
I have no idea what quotations you’re referring to. I don’t see anything that I’ve quoted that I think Dawkins would agree with at all, and you haven’t even attempted to present any evidence that he has done so or would do so. How about spelling out specifically what statement you think he would agree with and present some evidence of him agreeing with it? I don’t think this is an unreasonable request.
I think this is a rather silly argument. Yes, Hitchens supported the Iraq war. I did not. As far as I know, Dawkins did not. Yet both Dawkins and I have associated with and praised Hitchens (I’ve also criticized him many times, as I have Dawkins, when I think they’re wrong). Therefore you think he — and I, presumably — are somehow complicit in Hitchens’ views? And you think that this has something to do with Lafferty’s statement? If Dawkins has said something that indicates that he agrees with anything I’ve quoted above, please present it. I’d like to see it. If you don’t have such evidence, I think you ought to retract your accusation.
This has nothing to do with Dawkins worship. I have publicly criticized him several times for various things, going back almost 15 years. I’ve criticized both he and Christopher Hitchens for their indefensible claims about Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin being atheists (they certainly were not). I criticized Dawkins for signing a petition in England to prohibit parents from teaching their children about religion (and he agreed with me, saying that he hadn’t read the petition closely enough and subsequently had his name removed from it). I criticized him for the way he handled the Gillian Brown situation nearly 15 years ago, which I thought was very shoddy. I have no problem at all criticizing Richard Dawkins when he is wrong, just as I have no problem praising him when he is right. But you’ve made a fairly serious accusation here and provided absolutely nothing to support it. Evidence precedes belief; present the evidence and I might take the accusation seriously.
ambulocetacean
February 17, 2012 at 7:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Come on, nmcc, don’t keep me waiting. I’m just dying for you to come good with the evidence of Dawkins advocating violence.
Tobinius
February 17, 2012 at 7:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
nmcc says:
It is if you overlook the several requests – that you have completely ignored – for you to give actual examples of why you made the connection between this thread and Dawkins. Telling us that we should sort through 4 years of a website to determine if what you said has any validity to it, doesn’t help your case.
If you had been honest and said that you didn’t have any direct evidence, but it is based on your experience, then we all could have simple noted your “wee bit of thinking” and moved on. But no, you decide to dig your Troll hole even deeper by bring Hitchens into the discussion as proof of your assumption.
At this point I have to second Mr. Heath’s “I for one think you’re full of shit.”
ambulocetacean
February 17, 2012 at 7:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And as Ed just pointed out, he and many other FTBers and readers don’t hesitate to criticise Dawkins when he does something deserving of criticism.
And Dawkins is Beria now? I’ll give you points for going hammer-and-sickle Godwin instead of regular Godwin, but that’s about it.
I really just sounds like you’re having a giant whine because you got banned from Dawkins’ site. *shrug*
Ed Brayton
February 17, 2012 at 7:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I happen to agree that, even in the atheist community, we have cults of personality develop that make people defend their heroes to the end, even when they’re obviously wrong (I’ve even had people do it with me, even with my small amount of fame, when I deserved the criticism). And if Dawkins has said anything that is in agreement with what I quoted above, I would certainly criticize him for it. But so far I’ve seen only naked assertion and that just isn’t enough.
Chiroptera
February 17, 2012 at 7:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For the record, I actually despise Hitchens. However, comparing him to Lafferty is completely unfair.
Lafferty was praising acts of terrorism against people who are just minding their own business, worshiping their god in the way that they see fit.
Hitchens, if I understand him correctly, advocates the use of military action to remove abusive authoritarian regimes from power.
While I agree that Hitchens standards for justifying military action looser than mine, comparing his views to someone praising domestic terrorism is unfair and, frankly, dishonest.
Unless you are a pacifist and cannot distinguish any form of violence from one another.
laurentweppe
February 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sometimes Hitchens did go farther than that and pulled a Montagnac or two (Lucien-François de Montagnac was a french colonel now mostly -in-famous to have said “This is how [...] we must do war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, load them onto naval vessels, send them to the Marquesas Islands or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate all that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs“)
case in point:
dan4
February 18, 2012 at 12:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@15: If Lafferty actually LIVED in a northern state, I can maybe, possibly (and, yes, the “maybe” and “possibly” qualifiers are well-earned, considering that Lafferty didn’t mention anything about “the North.”) buy that explanation of his remarks. He doesn’t, however (as Ed already mentioned, he lives in Virginia).
nmcc
February 18, 2012 at 2:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed, I think you are protesting too much. I never accused you of doing any of the things that you disclaim.
In regard to my initial comment, I simply said, in an off-handish way, that, give or take a word or two, the first comment that you have indented would not be out of place on Dawkins’ website. I had this in mind:
“…The only coverage of our landmark event in defense of freedom, however, was from the anti-freedom, pro-jihad left. Islamic supremacists and their quisling apologists in the leftist media…”
Indeed, only the other day, Dawkins said almost exactly the same thing when criticising Hitchens’ old pals in the British so-called Socialist Workers Party. (If you want to look it up, it is on the thread reporting on and lauding Dawkins’ appearance and speech at a Defend Free Speech Action Day in London, and is, in fact, the thread on which I was banned by Dawkins from speaking, although, as I said above, I did not say or do anything against the rules of his website. Yes, I know…they never were big on irony on RD.net!)
In regard to the violence and Hitchens point, well, I think it’s a matter of degree. I can’t remember ever seeing you with your tongue halfway up Hitchens’ backside. But look at it this way – since we are discussing lefty buffoons – to my knowledge, George Galloway never actually praised the violence of the merely indefatigable Saddam, but did the late Hitchens or would Dawkins now disassociate Galloway from Saddam’s creed? I doubt it. And anyway, would you seriously doubt for a second that Dawkins would be an apologist for any future unholy war? I wouldn’t. Though, admittedly, he is such a mass of contradictions – when he ventures into the real world of politics and economics – that I suppose even that isn’t a certainty.
Incidentally, you do know that, following Blair’s pathetic attempt at debating Hitchens, Dawkins even opined that perhaps there is more to Blair than we all thought on no more grounds than that Hitchens was actually a fan of Blair. You know, the Tony Blair whose main claim to a mention in the history books is as an apologist – indeed instigator – for visiting massive violence on defenceless women and children.
dan4
February 18, 2012 at 5:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Getting back on topic….
“I do not condone or encourage any criminal act or vandalism against any mosque.”
Except when I do, like at my speech at CPAC.
laurentweppe
February 18, 2012 at 5:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Would you kindly provides quotes, or maybe a transcript, a video, a context about that? At first I thought you were talking about Dawkins’ speech during the “Defend Free Speech Action Day”, but after listening to it, there was not one mention of the British Socialist Worker Party, and while I did hear some dishonest rhetoric on Dawkins’ part, it never falled at Geller’s level.
nmcc
February 18, 2012 at 6:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
laurentweppe
I gave a reference in my comment above.
Actually, when I was driving along the road this morning, I suddenly remembered Dawkins making a comment along the lines of ‘I can’t imagine any reason why I would fight in a war’. I remember quite a lot of things Dawkins (and others) have said, but obviously not everything. I think that was the gist of what he said, so perhaps I am being unfair to him. Though, I’d be surprised if he would have been opposed to ALL of British capitalism’s wars over the years; especially the second world war.
KG
February 18, 2012 at 7:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In fact, Dawkins was one of the strongest voices in the UK against the Iraq war; nmcc is full of shit.
KG
February 18, 2012 at 7:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Do we take it from this that you think Britain’s participation in WWII was wrong, and it would have been better to let Hitler have his way across Europe? If not, what point do you think you are making? Are you perhaps a follower of Lyndon Larouche?
frankboyd
February 20, 2012 at 5:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Speaking of the cretinous farce of the American left, KG
You know, amongst my comrades we have some words. Words like “solidarity”. Words like “internationalism”. Words like “not being a fucking parochial first-world ninny who thinks it’s all about him”
Yeah, sure, the Islamic ultra-right isn’t a problem. Tell it to my Iranian comrades, fighting against a regime that keeps raping and murdering them. Tell it to the Sudanese Christians and Animists (and atheists) – or to the Sudanese blacks who were cut off an betrayed by people like you. Tell it to the Copts in Egypt. Heck, tell it to the Socialist parties in Iraq, who would have been completely slaughtered if people like you had been listened to. Or how about telling it to the slaves that are still taken under Islamic rule from Africa?
It’s called “internationalism” boys. Look it up sometime, in between congratulating yourselves for defending Saddam Hussein.
Michael Heath
February 20, 2012 at 6:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frankboyd writes:
Swings and misses . . . KG is not an American. Nice imagined representation of the American left as well. I suggest making arguments in public based on facts, not your own imagination.
frankboyd
February 20, 2012 at 6:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Great. The parochial first world left then. Sorry about this; I do tend to associate this sort of cretinous, droning self-regard with the yankee “left”.
I notice that you cannot answer the points I make, because they are not answerable.
dingojack
February 20, 2012 at 6:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Cranky Franky – No one answers your spittle-flecked talking points because they are both irrelevant and idiotic.
Run along and play, the grown-ups are talking.
Dingo
Michael Heath
February 20, 2012 at 6:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frankboyd writes to me:
That’s a ‘false restriction of alternatives’ fallacy where your imagination once again has you swinging and missing.
KG
February 20, 2012 at 7:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frankboyd,
Pamela Geller, who this thread is about, doesn’t give a shit about people suffering under oppressive regimes in majority-Muslim countries. Nor has American or other western intervention in such countries ever been intended to help such people. In Iraq, while Saddam Hussein was a vile tyrant (and your lie about all opponents of the invasion being supporters of Hussein is noted with contempt), he was most certainly not a member of any “Islamic ultra-right”, members of which, if the term has any meaning at all (you use it to cover a huge range of people, many of whom loathe each other), are now in government there. The invasion of Iraq has thus had the effect – quite apart from causing several hundred thousand deaths and displacing four million people – of greatly strengthening the “Islamic ultra-right” in Iraq, and also increasing the influence of the Iranian theocrats. I would not be at all surprised to learn that your solution to that is another American-led invasion, leading to a few million more deaths.
Chiroptera
February 20, 2012 at 8:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frankboyd, #43: Yeah, sure, the Islamic ultra-right isn’t a problem.
Context matters. We are talking about the domestic policies of the US in this thread, and the Islamic ultra-right isn’t a problem in regards to US internal security.
Not only are most Muslims in the US not a threat, they actually help provide intelligence to the US domestic security forces in dealing with the real threats.
This isn’t a thread about international Islam. It’s about American politicians and pundits who hate American Muslims and want to violate the rights of Americans but putting into place unnecessary and illegal restrictions on their activities. In fact, this is a thread about an American activist praising domestic terrorism.
I don’t think that anyone disputes that Islam is a serious problem in other countries. But that’s not the topic of this thread.
frankboyd
February 20, 2012 at 9:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whatever. The engine of history advances runs on rails made of irony. While I have more reason to dislike the crackpot Geller than, I suspect, anyone on this blog, the fact is that when, say, an ex-Sudanese slave (there are places in this world where the problem of slavery isn’t its “legacy”, but the real thing, here and now; look it up, comrades, look it up) looks for support, he goes to Ms. Geller and not to, say, the “freethought” blogs.
Your ability to bitch, without any concomitant ability to get into the fight yourself, simply marks you as an irrelevance.
Sorry, doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to advance every lie in defence of the guy when it matters and abandon the secularist, especially the secular left fighting tooth and nail against the guy, and then pretend you were on their side all along. Get real, kiddo, get real.
frankboyd
February 20, 2012 at 9:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chiroptera,
And I’m pointing out why it doesn’t mean squat how much you complain, Geller will always be a force while you won’t until you get into that argument seriously.
KG
February 20, 2012 at 9:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frankboyd,
You know fuck-all about me or what I do, liar. As it happens, I have made financial contributions to the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan, and two relevant UK organisations – Southall Black Sisters and Women Agianst Fundamentalism – all of which reject your support for imperialist invasions. I have also supported numerous online campaigns and petitions for victims of Islamist oppression. What I will not do is line up with scum like Geller and you.
I told no lies about Saddam Hussein at all, you lying scumbag.
Michael Heath
February 20, 2012 at 11:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frankboyd writes:
It’s really amazing to see someone repeatedly make arguments based on their own imagined premises, even after others repeatedly point out such logical fallacies won’t cut it in this venue. Do you enjoy repeatedly punching yourself in the face while others watch?
Chiroptera
February 20, 2012 at 11:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
frankboyd, #51: And I’m pointing out why it doesn’t mean squat how much you complain, Geller will always be a force while you won’t until you get into that argument seriously.
And the solution is what? Spread lies as if they were truth? Shout meaningless slogans as if they were well-reasoned arguments? ‘Cause that’s what you seem to be advocating here.
pelamun
February 20, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
we’ve seen frankboyd make idiotic posts without substance on other threads, also showing an utter incapability of addressing the points of other posters, and then flouncing when called out on it.
thislcick
March 27, 2012 at 10:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
thislcick…
[...]Geller: Pro-Jihad Media Quoted Colleague Accurately | Dispatches from the Culture Wars[...]…