While any rational person I speak with despises the far left nyt editorial board for its pyschotic, lunatic ravings such as how NYS should actually RAISE its taxes, or its vitriolic hatred of israel, it is opinion writers there like roger cohen who represent the worst, most nauseating thoughts of this rag. The paper would be far more appealing if the entire main section that covers national/international news and editorial were no longer published.
That said, he is an example of cohen's latest idiotic column that I've torn apart:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/op...ml?ref=opinion
"
No doubt, that is how Islamophobic right-wingers in Europe and the United States who share his views but not his methods will seek to portray Breivik."
So unlike terrorist muslims who far left morons like roger claim DON'T represent ALL muslims, a single lunatic gunman now represents all conservatives?
"
Breivik is no loner. His violence was brewed in a specific European environment that shares characteristics with the specific American environment of Loughner: relative economic decline, a jobless recovery, middle-class anxiety and high levels of immigration serving as the backdrop for racist Islamophobia and use of the spurious specter of a “Muslim takeover” as a wedge political issue to channel frustrations rightward."
As typical of the far left psychotics, lie when need to. Breivak was of means, and Norway is the wealthiest country in the world. But why let facts get in the way of a left wing lunatic's anti-conservative screed?
"
What has become clear in Oslo and on Utoya Island is that delusional anti-Muslim rightist hatred aimed at “multiculturalist” liberals can be just as dangerous as Al Qaeda’s anti-infidel poison: Breivik alone killed many more people than the four Islamist suicide bombers in the 7/7 London attack of 2005."
So, if a person with intelligence sees that the mass immigration of hostile muslims, unwilling to assimilate - that are causing most of the crime increase in their country - as a problem, they must be delusional? Or is it that roger, anyone who does not buy your unbelievable crap writings because they can think for themselves is "delusional"?
And he adds the laughably stupid line we see applied to Israel/arab conflicts, where the number of people killed on a side dictates who is "right" or "wrong."
"
Breivik has many ideological fellow travelers on both sides of the Atlantic. Theirs is the poison in which he refined his murderous resentment. The enablers include Geert Wilders in the Netherlands..."
So again, anyone who wants to stop the muslim mass flow is "racist"? As expected from the far left, when the facts don't aid your argument, just toss the "racist" label...
"
Muslims over the past decade have not done enough to denounce those who deformed their religion in the name of jihadist murder. Will the European and U.S. anti-immigrant Islamophobic crowd now denounce what Breivik has done under their ideological banner? I doubt it. We’ll be hearing a lot about what a loner he was."
Why should conservatives? He is one person, not a mass movement. When I see 400 million conservatives stand up and justify mass slaughter the way we see muslims do, THEN roger might have an argument.
"
Huge social problems have accompanied Muslim immigration in Europe in recent decades, much greater than in the more open United States. There is plenty of blame to go around. Immigrants have often faced racism and exclusion. The values of Islam on women, on marriage and on homosexuality, as well as the very vitality of the religion, have grated on a secular Europe. The picture is not uniform — successful integration exists — but it is troubling."
So finally, at least the idiot admits that muslim immigration has been an issue - but dilutes his comment with "There is plenty of blame to go around." How can an informed person with brains say that - when the immigrants themselves openly declare their hatred for secular democracy? Why else would people like that be immigrating, unless it was to eventually overwhelm the host country?
"
Nothing, however, can excuse the widespread condoning of an anti-Muslim racism once reserved for the Jews of Europe. Not on the weekend when Amy Winehouse, a Jewish girl..."
In a last grasp at trying to appeal to the cheap seats, he tosses the jew-race card trying to lap up some stupid sheep who might say, "yeah, that's right....didn't those euros once kill a lot of jews"? It has become clear to me that the intellectual level of people who read the other sections of the NYT absolutely dwarfs that who read and enjoy the opinion articles.
For those still on the fence over roger's intelligence and knowledge, look up his articles on iran - he is the leading light on what not to do regarding that country.
And despite the ravings of its fellow far leftist rag NY magazine, the NYT is not doing any better that it was a few years ago - I personally know at least a dozen people currently boycotting the times until its editorial board is revamped entirely. Financially on paper, it might have rescued itself, but until it begins to take a more mainstream position, it will continue to remain on life support.
G-d do I hate the NYT, rant over...
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The NY Times is so unbelievably awful
