Right-wing blogs attack Lara Logan after tragic incident

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Right now, I'm truly disgusted and ashamed of people within my own party who are either blaming Lara Logan for the brutal rape and assault that she endured or chalking it up to karma.

Two blogs - The Gateway Pundit and DebbieSchlussel.com - have both taken different but equally awful approaches to discussing what happened to Lara Logan.

First, a portion of the entry from Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit:

Lara Logan is lucky she’s alive.
Her liberal belief system almost got her killed on Friday. This talented reporter will never be the same.

Why did this attractive blonde female reporter wander into Tahrir Square last Friday? Why would she think this was a good idea? Did she not see the violence in the square the last three weeks? Did she not see the rock throwing? Did she miss the camels? Did her colleagues tell her about the Western journalists who were viciously assaulted on the Square? Did she forget about the taunts from the Egyptian thugs the day before? What was she thinking? Was it her political correctness that about got her killed? Did she think things would be different for her?

[Source]

Next, the entry from Debbie Schlussel:

As I’ve noted before, it bothers me not a lick when mainstream media reporters who keep telling us Muslims and Islam are peaceful get a taste of just how “peaceful” Muslims and Islam really are. In fact, it kinda warms my heart. Still, it’s also a great reminder of just how “civilized” these “people” (or, as I like to call them in Arabic, “Bahai’im” [Animals]) are...

[Source]

Schlussel also posted an update after receiving reaction on the entry:

The reaction of the left to this article is funny in its predictability. Sooo damn predictable. Of course I don’t support “sexual assault” or violence against Lara Logan, and I said that nowhere here. RIF–Reading Is Fundamental. Your premature articulation is a problem. I did say that it warms my heart when reporters who openly deny that Islam is violent and constantly promote it get the same kinds of threats of violence I get every day from Muslims. Because now they know how it feels. They aren’t so dismissive of the threats when those threats are directed at them, instead of at us little people. And yet they still won’t admit that THIS. IS. ISLAM. Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this “revolution” by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about.

Hoft chose a more "misogyny-on-parade" approach, focusing on her looks and asking condescending hypothetical questions about why she was there, as if her presence gave anyone the right to touch her in the first place. Schlussel, on the other hand, seems to imply that Logan's abuse was deserved based on an allegedly naive attitude about what the people were like and how they'd treat her.

It seems people have taken a casual attitude about rape in the past few years, and that's really bothersome. No wonder rapes go unreported in the world, when you have morons like these playing the victim-blame game.

EDIT: Seems it gets worse when you read the rest of Schlussel's entry:

So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows. Or so we'd hope. But in the case of the media vis-a-vis Islam, that's a hope that's generally unanswered.

This never happened to her or any other mainstream media reporter when Mubarak was allowed to treat his country of savages in the only way they can be controlled.

Now that's all gone. How fitting that Lara Logan was "liberated" by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the "liberation."

Hope you're enjoying the revolution, Lara! Alhamdilllullah [praise allah].

[Source]

I want so badly to punch Debbie Schlussel in the face over and over and over again...

Comments

Re: You've avoided questions over and over.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

What question have I failed to answer: that those countries are worse? I've answered those many times, from the very beginning, over and over.

If specific laws apply in the exact same manner in other countries? I've said it's ridiculous to apply that, but I posted a whole list of other countries that have legislated discrimination against women, many non muslim.

What else have I failed to answer you? I seems you are the one desperate to "win" a debate because you fucked up and didn't understand one and fundamental thing in my phrase that bugged you:

Again: Blogger: MUSLIMS are ANIMALS because they rape, that is what ISLAM is.

Me: (with great irony) Christians too! (note what you DIDN'T GET: I DO NOT, DO NOT think Muslims are animals, and hence by the same logic DO NOT think Christians are animals. It was a direct appliance to the blogger's flawed logic, which you, by your own definition do not agree with.

Can it be any clearer than this?

That is faulty logic. Not eating pork is certainly a muslim thing, but when a Christian doesn't eat pork that doesn't make it a Christian thing. (Note that it would also be bad logic to conclude that since I'm saying it's bad logic, I therefore agree with Stussel that rape is part of Islam. It would also be quite faulty to say I was comparing eating pork with rape. I used the example since it was the only thing that came to mind that is innately Muslim and something that some non-muslims do.)

Well hallelujah and thank you, without meaning to, you actually finally GOT my irony. I don't think rape is innate to either Christians or Muslims, as a direct answer to a direct quote by the blogger, that it is (to Muslims). I was using her own flawed logic. Congratulations for "getting it" inadvertently. Or did it escape you that I think the blogger is WRONG in their logic?

I would agree those are all probable causes. In the case of Saudi Arabia and the Taliban I would say an extreme version of Islam is also much to blame. I've theorized in other threads here that if they had (actual) freedom of speech and democracy, a lot of this crap would go away, eventually.

Sure. Thank you, that's what I wanted to hear.

Re: You've avoided questions over and over.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

note what you DIDN'T GET: I DO NOT, DO NOT think Muslims are animals, and hence by the same logic DO NOT think Christians are animals.

I never thought that you did. You've continually accused me in this thread of thinking things I don't think, and it's getting really old.

Again: Blogger: MUSLIMS are ANIMALS because they rape, that is what ISLAM is.

I think it's Blogger: Muslims are animals, so they rape.
But with your interpretation, you're mocking her flawed logic, as opposed to using your own flawed logic as my pork example was illustrating.



...understand one and fundamental thing in my phrase that bugged you:

Again: Blogger: MUSLIMS are ANIMALS because they rape, that is what ISLAM is.

Sorry, but that is complete revisionism, which doesn't work when everything is written down.

What you actually said: Also, how quaint that these blogs never mention all the rapes that take place in a Christian society. I guess maybe they weren't "real" rapes?

So yeah, I fucked up because I didn't see from that that you were actually saying "Blogger: MUSLIMS are ANIMALS because they rape, that is what ISLAM is.

The blogger certainly didn't say that, and you'll note the blogger did say :

"...who openly deny that Islam is violent and constantly promote it get the same kinds of threats of violence I get every day from Muslims. Because now they know how it feels. They aren’t so dismissive of the threats when those threats are directed at them, instead of at us little people. And yet they still won’t admit that THIS. IS. ISLAM."

She's talking about (threats of) violence, not rape specifically. It's blogger: "they rape b/c they're animals", not "they're animals b/c they rape".

Re: You've avoided questions over and over.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I never thought that you did. You've continually accused me in this thread of thinking things I don't think, and it's getting really old.

Actually, these were not accusations, they were exclamatory explanations, due to the abundant misunderstandings to what I've written before. Just putting a little extra security behind what I write.

And really? you are defending your argument by exchanging rape with violence and splitting hairs?

Well okay then: blogger says THIS IS ISLAM (meaning violence), Look what happens when you experience it for yourself! (you get raped), "now she (Lara Logan) knows what Islamic revolution is all about (rape), after being the chief cheerleader (meaning Logan) for this revolution by "animals" (meaning muslims).

You can exchange rape for violence if you wish, it doesn't change my point.

She's talking about (threats of) violence, not rape specifically. It's blogger: "they rape b/c they're animals", not "they're animals b/c they rape".

Well, your interpretation makes her points even more flawed, and my points even clearer. I don't disagree, you just want to shift the focus from rape, which, whether it is true in this text interpretation or not, I don't argue with. My point still stands when it comes to the blogger's flawed logic, and my ironic example is applicable, in a slightly more positive interpretation of her meaning than yours. Possibly you'll want to have it that since she is a complete screaming racist, meaning that Muslims are animals regardless of the violence/rape factor (i.e. they rape/threaten/use violence because they're animals, not the other way around), my ironic counter example is useless. In which case, ironically comparing to other societies having violence, threats and rape is useless because the blogger is a screaming racist to the point that she states that Muslims are complete innate animals and they just beat, rape and kill because of this trait, while in other societies, violence is only made by exceptions among a society of humans.

In any case, your hair-splitting analysis only makes the contents of that blog post dance on a scale between really bad and fucking awful, where my original interpretation was on the better part of "really bad".

Re: You've avoided questions over and over.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

And really? you are defending your argument by exchanging rape with violence and splitting hairs?

No, your (most recent) argument rested on the assumption that the blogger was saying muslims were animals b/c they rape. You said but hey, christians rape so they must be animals too, and that was your (revised) justification for your original comment.

But the blogger didn't say that, nor did you quote them as such. The statement "muslims rape, so they are animals" does imply that christians who rape are animals, but the blogger, if anything, said "muslims are animals, so they rape". That does not in any way imply that Christians are animals when they rape. That's not hairsplitting. It's basic logic.

Re: You've avoided questions over and over.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Congratulations for repeating exactly what I stated above. With the one exception that I said that's your interpretation of what the blogger said. I don't personally care two tosses, if she is a screaming complete racist, and by thus making my somewhat (in this context) optimistic (on her character) example null, or if in reality she means they are animals because of what they do (as opposed to what they are), which would make my example fitting.

Again, I don't care two tosses, I chose to interpret her text as having some logic, albeit twisted, not being off the bloody racist chain, which is what you are saying.