Archive for March, 2007

Why did the Chicken Cross the Road?

Aristotle: To actualize its potential.

Buddha: If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken-nature.

George W. Bush: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us. There is no middle ground here.

Bill Clinton: I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What do you mean by chicken? Could you define chicken, please?

Kafka: Hardly the most urgent enquiry to make of a low-grade insurance clerk who woke up that morning as a hen.

Howard Cosell: It may very well have been one of the most astonishing events to grace the annals of history. An historic, unprecedented avian biped with the temerity to attempt such an herculean achievement formerly relegated to homo sapien pedestrians is truly a remarkable occurence.

Salvador Dali:The Fish.

Darwin: Chickens, over great periods of time, have been naturally selected in such a way that they are now genetically dispositioned to cross roads.

Jacques Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned,because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!

Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.

Emerson: The chicken didn’t cross the road; it transcended it.

Emily Dickinson: Because it could not stop for death.

Epicurus: For fun.

Louis Farrakhan: The road, you will see, represents the black man. The chicken “crossed” the black man in order to trample him and keep him down.

Freud: The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.

Supreme Soviet: There has never been a chicken in this photograph.

Bill Gates: I have just released the new eChicken 2000, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook.

Goethe: The eternal hen-principle made it do it.

Grandpa: In my day, we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Someone told us that the chicken had crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.

Heisenberg: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it was moving very fast.

Pat Buchanan: To steal a job from a decent, hard-working American.

Hemingway: To die. In the rain.

Hippocrates: Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its pancreas.

David Hume: Out of custom and habit.

Carl Jung: The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt necessitated that individual chickens cross roads at this historical juncture, and therefore synchronicitously brought such occurrences into being.

Douglas Adams: Forty-two.

John F. Kennedy: All free men, wherever they may live, are chickens. And therefore as a free man, I take pride in the words: “Ich bin ein Hühnchen”.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads without having their motives called into question.

Captain Kirk: To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.

Timothy Leary: Because that’s the only kind of trip the Establishment would let it take.

John Lennon: Imagine all the chickens crossing roads in peace.

Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken’s dominion maintained.

Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.

Moses: And God came down from the Heavens, and He said unto the Chicken, “Thou shalt cross the road.” And the chicken crossed the road, and there was much rejoicing.

Agent Mulder: You saw it cross the road with your own eyes. How many more chickens have to cross the road before you believe it?

Ralph Nader: The chicken’s habitat on the original side of the road had been polluted by unchecked industrialist greed. The chicken did not reach the unspoiled habitat on the other side of the road because it was crushed by the wheels of a gas-guzzling SUV.

Nietzsche: Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also across you.

Richard M. Nixon: The chicken did not cross the road. repeat, the chicken did NOT cross the road.

Plato: For the greater good.

Pyrrho the Skeptic: What road?

Ronald Reagan: I forget.

Mohammed Said Al-Sahhaf: The chicken did not cross the road. This is a complete fabrication. We don’t even have a chicken.

Colonel Sanders: I missed one?

Jean-Paul Sartre: In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the chicken found it necessary to cross the road.

Jerry Seinfeld: Why does anyone cross a road? I mean, why doesn’t anyone ever think to ask, “What the heck was this chicken doing walking around all over the place, anyway? Where do they get these chickens?”

Dr. Seuss: Did the chicken cross the road?
Did he cross it with a toad?
Yes, the chicken crossed the road,
but why it crossed, I’ve not been told!

B.F. Skinner: Because the external influences which had pervaded its sensorium from birth had caused it to develop in such a fashion that it would tend to cross roads, even while believing these actions to be of its own free will.

The (real) Sphinx: You tell me.

Oliver Stone: The question is not, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Rather, it is, “Who was crossing the road at the same time, whom we overlooked in our haste to observe the chicken crossing?”

Mr. T: If you saw me coming you’d cross the road too!

Thoreau: To live deliberately and suck all the marrow out of life.

Torquemada: Give me ten minutes with the chicken and I’ll find out.

Mark Twain: The news of its crossing has been greatly exaggerated.

Voltaire: I may not agree with what the chicken did, but I will defend to the death its right to do it.

Wittgenstein: The possibility of “crossing” was encoded into the objects “chicken” and “road”, and circumstances came into being which caused the actualization of this potential occurrence.

Molly Yard: It was a hen!

Zeno of Elea: To prove it could never reach the other side.

The Sphinx

Dangerous mistranslation

“WIPED OFF THE MAP” – The Rumor of the Century

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran’s President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”. Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.


On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled “The World Without Zionism”. Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster’s title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass’ narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.

Before we get to the infamous remark, it’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.


So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

I find it funny that people who criticize Israel often carefully distinguish between the government of Israel and its policy, and the people of Israel and their religion, practically always targeting the regime in itself, and not the people. On the other hand, Zionists tend to place everything in the same basket, and throw around accuses of anti-semitism.

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel.”


The full quote translated directly to English:

“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad’s web site [link]


While the false “wiped off the map” extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad’s actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the “map” comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a “world without Zionism”. One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West’s apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the “Zionist regime” was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world’s struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America’s powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini’s own words foretelling that individual regime’s demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini’s unfulfilled wish: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise”. This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.


One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.

The inflammatory “wiped off the map” quote was first disseminated not by Iran’s enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran’s official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran’s Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Sensationalism sells. Usually at a very high price.

Amid heated wrangling over Iran’s nuclear program, and months of Scontinuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d’être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.

It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA’s translation changed. For instance, “map” was replaced with “earth”. In some articles it was “The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth”, or the similar “The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth”. The inconsistency of the IRNA’s translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.


The mistranslated “wiped off the map” quote attributed to Iran’s President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.

Following news of Iran’s remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed “revulsion” and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel’s destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe Iran off the map. More recently, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is “preparing another holocaust for the Jewish state” is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide.

It’s always genocide and antisemitism. Seriously, somebody needs to come up with new ideas for names to throw around, it’s getting lame already. Not to mention that a regime vanishing from the page of time has jack to do with genocide to start with.

The artificial quote has also been subject to additional alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the “map” reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase “wipe Israel off the face of the earth”. Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has “called for the destruction of Israel”, as do senior officials in the United States government.

President George W. Bush said the comments represented a “specific threat” to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because, “..the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel.” Former Presidential advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran “talks openly about destroying Israel”, and insists, “The President of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth”. In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as “the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, ‘It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth’ “. The consensus is clear.

Just think about the publicity! First starting a war against a country to hunt down one man, then not find him in the end. Then starting a war against a country for “finding (non-existant) WMDs”, then crowning it all by launching a war against a country based on a mistranslated quote. Absolutely perfect job George, keep up the great work!

Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth’s Washington Post interview in September 2006:

“Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?”

“We need to look at the scene in the Middle East — 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza — what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.”

“Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?”

“Our suggestion is very clear:… Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted…. The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.”

“You’ve been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?”

“What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago…”

“So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?”

“Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let’s allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.”

Talk about originality in asking questions.. Just like O’Reilly.

The exchange is typical of Ahmadinejad’s interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to “wipe Israel off the map”. As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter’s face with his standard “Don’t the Palestinians have rights?, etc.” retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he never confirms the “map” comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial break and lying, “as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map.”

Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled Words of Hate: Iran’s Escalating Threats released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, “Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel.”

Are they high? No wait, they probably have only a very wild imagination..

These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran.

As Iran’s U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to The Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:

It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month’s remarks by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that “We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.”

The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world. “They speak proudly and openly of their desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’ And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world.” Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: “We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. [Yes indeed, Jackass, we all know you never did that now, did you..] Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?”

Which country has NOT signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and begins with an “I”? Only one answer is right:
[ ] Iran
[ ] Israel


On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post’s headline was Ahmadinejad: Israel will be ‘wiped out’, while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will ‘soon be wiped out’.

Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter’s Paul Hughes [Iran president says Israel's days are numbered], and the AP’s Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel Will be wiped out].

The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to “Haaretz Service and Agencies”, are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed “the Jewish state” to “Israel” in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical.

Doesn’t that happen all the time?

The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: ["Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report:

“The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom,” Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday’s meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran’s official news agency, IRNA.

He said elections should be held among “Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner.”

Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except “He called for elections” became “He said elections should be held…”

It gets more interesting.

The quote used in the original AP article and copied in The Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked. Care to find out? Go to this link

There you will discover the actual IRNA quote was:

“As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated.”

Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press:

“The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom”.

In the IRNA’s actual report, the Zionist regime will vanish just as the Soviet Union disappeared. Vanish. Disappear. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be “wiped out.” And how will it be wiped out? “The same way the Soviet Union was.” Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad’s previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements.

Seriously, anybody who has a slight idea of history should know that the Soviet Union wasn’t wiped off the map, but brought on its own downfall. Which makes you wonder why nobody questioned that point in the first place. But of course, they only see the ultra-conservative nutty president saying dangerous things.

What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors’ words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.

This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake [To put it lightly..]. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq’s much larger and more formidable neighbor, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumor of the century.

Iran’s President has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that “History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive”. With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise “vanish from the page of time.”
Arash Norouzi is an artist and co-founder of The Mossadegh Project.

Another shameful achievement of the alarmist and sensationalist media. Spread the word, this issue is very serious.

The Sphinx

The war on Islam – Internet style

If you look at my links section, you might have realized that I removed the link to If you didn’t know what Digg is, here’s a short introduction: In the past, Digg used to be a funny, interesting and sometimes informative source on interesting tech news, and recently other types news. It had a system of users choosing which stories are interesting, and which ones aren’t. One could “digg up” a story if it’s worth publishing, or “bury” it if it’s lame, spam, inaccurate, etc.. If a story got enough diggs, it would appear on the front page for everyone to see.

Users could also comment on every story, and have their comments dugg up or down by other users, depending on how relevant, interesting or funny the comment is.
One could spend lots of time searching Digg for interesting stories, rating them, commenting on them, reading other people’s comments, and so on.

Not too long ago, Digg created a “Political news” and “Political opinion” section, allowing even a broader spectrum of stories and news. You’d get your usual troll here and there, but they got buried pretty quickly. Extremely right-wing comments never got through. And so it was..

A couple of weeks ago though, anti-Islamic stories started to appear, one by one. They increased very quickly and started hitting the front page in a scary fashion. What was even scarier was that the comments bashing Islam and calling for the genocide of all muslims or the destruction of Islam as a whole started getting extremely positive ratings, while the comments saying that it’s just a minority of extremists and not the religion got buried very quickly, along with the comments saying that not all muslims are terrorists, and that the media is just biased and that Islam is in fact not a violent or hateful religion.

After going through the comments sections and arguing with lots of muslim-bashing trolls, I decided to quit. It was far too ridiculous for me to cope with and it was like talking to a wall. Plus I have better things to do with my time than convincing some people that they have serious problems.

Interestingly enough, this whole raid on digg had one single source: The vile scum also known as Little Green Footballs. For the confused: Little Green Footballs is a blog which is seemingly dedicated to bash Muslims and Islam in every way possible. While the main author of the blog, Charles Johnson, restricts himself to presenting every single piece of bad news about the Religion of Peace (A term, which he tends to use, but in a sarcastic manner), his faithful readership is rabidly islamophobic and the comment section has featured frequent calls to destroy Islam, nuke out the middle east, drive all Muslims away from Islam, or even more convenient: Kill all muslims (Who are always associated with terrorism, violence, and barbarianism and are referred to as “Koranimals” and other rather pejorative statements).

Yes yes, “Free speech” you’ll say.. Nothing against being able to express yourself, but if you ask me, nowadays free speech is just becoming another lame excuse in order to p#&@ people off and get away with it.
I’m currently positioned in a country which has extremely strict laws and regulations about anything that’s even remotely connected with Nazi-ism (In Germany, you’re not even allowed to draw a crossed-out Swastika, which is supposedly an Anti-Nazi symbol.. just because the sign contains a swastika to begin with). So Neo-Nazis don’t have their share of free speech. Fair enough if you ask me, there are limits for everything, even free speech, and Nazi propaganda is far beyond that limit already.

Now what does this have in any way to do with LGF? Everything. If you check out this little quiz (further down the page), you’ll realize that LGF’s readership-spread propaganda and Nazi propaganda aren’t very far apart. In fact, the only difference is that it’s another group of people that’s being victimised. If you take that quiz, you’ll realize that the sentiment, and sometimes even the terminology used is exactly the same. So insisting that this type of behaviour falls under the holy right of free speech doesn’t fall short of being plain Hypocrisy™.

Ironically enough, the LGF crowds would be the last ones to associate themself with Hitler or the likes. After a LGF post about an attack on a Jewish Kindergarten in Germany, there were even statements like “I’m still baffled about why any Yidden chose to return to Germany.“. But naturally though, the commenters were pathologically trying to associate muslims with this story, although if you read the story, there is no proof that it was muslims to start with. And not to forget the usual violent urges against muslims, and the hints of Jewish Supremacy in th e rounds.

Funnily enough, regarding that story of the Kindergarten, one of the commenters said: “I guess people haven’t learned from history.“. And although I proudly disassociate myself from anything that has to do with LGF and it’s agenda, I find myself agreeing with that comment. The LGF crowds just haven’t learned that this kind of hate and bias has lead to very ugly results, like the Holocaust that they themselves loathe so much, ironically.

At this point I will remind everybody that I firmly reject such attacks on Jews, and I will gladly say again that I respect Judaism and Jews as Islam tells me to. But this LGF-esque attitude of promoting one group to an almost super-human status and constantly kissing up to them, and at the same time reducing another group to the ranks of vermin is ridiculous, especially if it’s based on a few historical events. Unfortunately, things don’t work that way. We’re all human beings after all, and God created us all equal, and in our humble state, we are not the ones to destroy this equality.

It seems that these people are unaware that fighting Islam is simply useless. To kill off both means to kill the ideologies, and to kill the ideologies you need to kill every single person who supports the ideologies. Now if you take Islam as a target that you want to annihilate, that means you want to kill over 1.5 billion muslims, along with the countless other people who have no problems with Islam, and even like Islam and muslims. And all those people together probably make up significantly more than half of the world’s population. You want to kill half the world’s population? You deserve the sad remains of your brain surgically removed.
Islam is the fastest growing religious community in the world, and it is here to stay. Period, end of discussion. Live with it and stop whining. And if you’re afraid that they’ll take over the west and impose their beliefs on everybody:
a) Bullcrap. That’s simply not going to happen.
b) That’s exactly the tactic Hitler used to fuel the hatred and fear against Jews not too long ago. So I guess Hitler is your role model then.

What adds a pathetic twist to this whole story is that the LGF crowds (calling themselves Lizards for mysterious reasons) are gloating that their recent actions at will seriously help them in the war on terror. How it will is beyond me. Fighting terrorism is like trying to fight the wind. It’ll always be there and has always been there since humans have existed, not to mention that fighting terrorism is one of the reasons why terrorism exists. And fighting terrorism can usually be a form of terrorism itself.
About the uselessness of trying to fight terrorism, refer to this interesting commentary. The only way to stop terrorism is simply to stop being terrified.

What they don’t realize is that this hostility towards muslims is exactly what fuels muslims’ hatred towards the west even more. Muslims do NOT hate westerners, Muslims hate intolerant westerners. Muslims do NOT hate other religions, muslims hate members of other religions bashing theirs. Muslims do NOT hate freedom as some imbecile once said, muslims hate the abuse of freedom. And sadly enough, it’ll be a long time before the LGF crowds realize this.

To sum it up all up
War on Terror: Useless
War on Islam: Stupid, and even more useless
Islamic Terror: Oxymoron. Islam has never condoned terrorism. That’s a lie.
Best way to get people on your side: Make them tremble in fear.

For more information and updates on LGF, visit this nice blog dedicated to exposing the shenanigans coming from that wretched place. Which is the best way to deal with these people, as Karin told me once. In order to bring them down, you need to expose them first.

The Sphinx


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.