"Bile-filled?"

Try fascistic.

Charles approves and cultivates the tone of his comments. Try posting a "P.C." comment on a *thread* with blatantly racist comments:

However, that's what Quebec gets and deserves for importing scum from North Africa just to bolster the French-speaking numbers. These people are useless and evil.

See how long it takes your PC comment to get deleted vs. the a bile-filled comment.

Charles is the bile.

He's a hate-monger with thin skin. There's a difference between providing a valuable service and fostering hate. The scary thing is that his is one of the most-trafficked blogs on the web.

When you ban fellow-traveler Tacitus--who largely agrees with Charles--for criticizing your integrity, you've got serious issues.

To add to SAO's line of thought, I am going to repeat my last comment from the predecessor thread, since I don't think this point is getting enough attention:

"You are missing a third point here however - an important one - that I will try to phrase in the most neutral way possible: Charles Johnson actively takes part in LGF's comments section. He often joins in the mocking of dissident posters who are labelled "pc trolls" or idiotarians. This is often done in the case of dissenting posters who object to what they perceive as racist or highly offensive views expressed in the comments or on the blog itself. Johnson also bans quite a number of dissident posters, some of whom are true nuisance trolls, others of whom appear to simply have a strong disagreement. I have not seen Johnson ban the racists, even highly offensive ones or even object to their tone. (Although, neither have I seen him reiterate it.) This is all the more one-sided inasmuch as Johnson does not tolerate any anti-Jewish hatespeech, yet has no problem with the anti-Islamic kind. This double standard alone greatly encourages the latter.

Charles Johnson thereby exercises a fair degree of control over the identity of the posters themselves and therefore the content itself."

...corresponding with ex-blogger...

Is there a 12-step program for this?

I think that the good thing about our side is that we're willing to accept the humanity of everyone - including our enemies, which is why we grieve, not cheer, at the picture on Nathan's site. When we stop doing that - as Kos did, and as many of Charles' commenters do, we erode our own standing.

I absolutely believe this. We really need to cultivate our better selves--although we may rejoice at our victories, we must never rejoice at our enemies' defeats. And mourn every human's death.

This is what I fear the most about a protracted conflict--the "generational" or even perpetual conflict that some talk about--that we will become so hardened that we will have lost some of what's worth fighting for in our culture.

And railing--which is what I've seen in many of the LGF commenters, in Kos's recent comments, and in some of his critics' comments--is itself an evil deed.

Who is Nathan in this context, and what pictures did he post?

I have another problem with LGF's approach of demonizing Islam and Muslims. It is sort of the reverse of the issue I have with the way the European press and political establishment are increasingly defining the Islam vs. the West issue.

I often here on French radio and read in the press here (in Paris where I live) criticism from mainstream French intellectuals/politicians of Bush's war on terror as a bomb-them-all-to-bits war against Muslims, as though the Bush administration had defined the us-against-them conflict as Muslims versus the West (or the U.S.). This of course is a gross misunderstanding of the Bush administration position, which should be obvious to anyone who has noted the administration's significant attempts to reach out to the Muslim community, to define the enemy as terrorists and their supporters, to encourage Arab and Muslim moderates, and to favor democratization and human rights.

The 'mental trick' I see going on in the French caricature of U.S. policy is that the French themselves often fall into their own "we versus them" error, in which the 'them' 'identified' as the psychologically 'legitimate' representatives of the Muslim world are people like Yassin, Arafat, suicide bombers, Al Quaeda extremists, the Iraqi "resistance", and even as of today Al Sadr, in other words, the Islamic world is reduced to its worst elements. What happened to the moderates? the progressives? the democrats? the dissidents? the Kanan Makiyas, the Massouds - or people like Zeyad - in Iraq, but also in the Muslim world as a whole? They have been 'intellectually' defined out of the debate. (Of course, one could say that the 'them' is defined as whoever is opposed to the U.S. or Israel at a given moment.)

This sort of reductionism is just as racist in its way as anything that LGF does. But the highly polarized view, in either case, is neither descriptive of the entirety of the Muslim world, nor particularly helpful. Indeed, it's politically quite unhelpful.

In fairness to Charles Johnson, I do recognize that he draws needed attention to Islamic moderates as well, even if I find the tone of the site as a whole distasteful.

Nathan is a left-leaning blogger who is trying to debate LGF on their own terms... and losing.

Thus he is the "fifth-column/traitior to America/on the other side," etc.

Notice the eliminationist rhetoric- the exact opposite of the tone here.

I'm heartened to see comments about the horror that is the LGF site. It truly ruined my day when I visited there, and I was shocked that a quality blogger such as Roger L. Simon (that I have been visiting recently) links there so often. It's disgusting! I cannot imagine what sensibility allows such abject expressions of hate and bigotry to remain there for all to see.

I am an LGFer who agrees that the tone of much of the rhetoric on LGF is wrong. There are several posters who I have asked repeatedly to be banned, bigel and Camel Prophet for example. The problem with LGF is that it is so popular you inevitably end up with fringers, people who populat FreeRepublic, etc. I sincerely wish he would clean up some of the more blatant posts there, especially along the lines of "raze Falujah", most of which were not academic, but rather vengeful in nature. However, I would like to point out that most of the regulars, save a few of the above mentioned, are not nearly so vile. Indeed, the worst ones seem to come and go, contributing little but bile.

Calling the site fascistic is just as bad as the worst that you accuse LGF of being. It shows your attitudes and biases to no better than those you decry.

And as for being a hate monger, I think that is laughable. Rather, I would say that he has been overtaken by pessism, and sees little hope in the Arab World. The difference is huge, but not easily seen.

Not easily seen, but easily used as an excuse to further hate and its crimes.

And what is that supposed to mean Kori? That he tells his readers to go out and kill Muslims? Give me a break. Personally, I think that he feels that there is no hope for the Arab/Muslim world, and that it is only a matter of time before the Belmont Club 3 Conjectures scenario takes place.

http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_belmontclub_archive.html#106401071003484059

"Raze Falujah" was a post, not a comment.

Charles himself probably doesn't advocate the massacre of the 200,000 people who live there, but he certainly intends to court and amplify those who would.

I believe he's responsible for the comments made regularly on his site. Just because he only toys with or halfway endorses disgusting things doesn't make him any less responsible.

The comments I have collected are all very fascistic: eliminationist, racist, and cruel. There's really no reason why I should have to go digging through the filth (that you seem to enjoy every day), but here's more:

Comments made about the rape and murder of a 16 year old Palestinian girl:

Raped and killed at the age of 16? The Prophet would not approve. You're supposed to rape and MARRY them, and at a much younger age.

Rape, if not by the father, is against Islam. Doncha know?

The Palestinians aren't really concerned with the rape and murder, after all it was just a girl. The reason they're screaming for blood is because before the men murdered her and while she was raped they made her take her hajib off.

Nice company you've got FH (and A.L. by proxy).

I thought I was pretty clear what I meant. What he thinks and what his readers think (as evidenced by their comments) can differ quite a bit. We are responsible to some extent for our speech. If reasonable readers such as those here can sense the hate emanating from LGF even at a reasonable digital distance in the blogosphere (!), then there's a problem. If LGF were writing all he were writing about Jews -- think. of. the. holocaust. -- and letting those comments stand (again substituting Jews for Muslims) would you still hold the same "it's not a problem" opinion?

You know, violence is a culmination of the violence of internal feelings, and what we read most definitely can contribute to roiling emotions -- negative emotions -- directed at other individuals, or even an entire people. It makes a HUGE qualitative difference that Winds of Change has their Sufi Islam posts. The feeling you have towards Muslims (I surmise) after reading those posts are quite different from those you leave with having visited LGF. When people start putting feelings of hate into practice, that's a problem, but it needs to be nipped in the bud, when those feelings begin to emerge. That means calling sites like LGF or people like Sadr on it when they're either carelessly or purposefully promoting hate.

SAO brings up some good examples. I imagine most of those commenters on LGF aren't of the background of people such as Juan Cole and though I'm not Muslim, I sense that they aren't really up to date on what it means to be Muslim at all yet feel absolutely okay, even obliged, to speak derogatively of it. What of the misinformation on that site? We're not ignorant anymore of what happens when people spread misinformed lies about Jews -- some people end up believing it, not knowing any better. So we're vigilant. LGF is not, to say the least.

SAO, You are "probably" right quite often (to use a word that hearkens back to an earlier point of yours on the recent thread). I'd be on your side of the bet, regarding the "importing scum from North Africa" quote you cited.

Still, I'd like to suggest to those holding the position that LGF should be simply dismissed as racist that sometimes it may be true that a group of people has horrendously wicked traits. Since you haven't proven that none of the critiques of Arab culture seen on LGF is plausible, it seems that your position simply stipulates that it will always be wrong to say of a group that it has horrendously wicked traits, even if it does have those traits. Such epistemic hand-tying is quite unwise. It makes important truths taboo in the forum. It's an impedement to knowledge. And it does so on the false premise that denunciation of a group is always racist.

Even if SAO is right that such denunciation is more often than not racist, it isn't always racist.

You're quite right, Jim. My main point is in regard to the comments section, which I believe is regularly vulgar, cruel, and racist- and which I believe Charles feeds. I do not believe the posts themselves are ipso facto racist. Nor would I want to "tie hands" in the face of the more savage cruelty which Charles reports on.

The post I'm working on is exactly about the place of cruelty.

I think that it has a place; I don't anticipate living in a world free of it (nature is cruel in it's indifference to us, for example) but I think that part of we have to do is find it's place and keep it locked there.

SAO - I don't think ignoring those who want to 'raze Falluja' is the answer; I think we ingored those who wanted to 'raze New York' for too long. I think we need to engage them and deal with the (real) issues that are at the root of the anger - on both sides.

A.L.

Sure let's not ignore them. Let's not ignore the fascists on the other side either.

Are you saying we should "engage" LGF? Or are you saying Charles is "engaging" the people who would raze Falluja?

Charles isn't trying to educate, he is reinforcing hatred. *This* is what education and looks like.

Please.

"Raze Fallujah" are not my words. It's the title of an article by Tammy Bruce, that I linked to in order to kick off a discussion. If you had bothered to read past your own prejudices, you would have discovered that I explicitly said, in a comment to that post, that I was NOT ENDORSING that view.

Now carry on with your LGF bashing.

Gabriel Gonzalez wrote:

Johnson also bans quite a number of dissident posters, some of whom are true nuisance trolls, others of whom appear to simply have a strong disagreement. I have not seen Johnson ban the racists, even highly offensive ones or even object to their tone.

Excuse me, but how the hell do you know who I ban and who I delete, and who I don't? Have you been seen my ban file?

This is one of the most disingenuous accusations that people make against me.

I don't keep track of each and every banned poster or deleted post, so I can't assure you that the number on each side is exactly the same, but your accusation is totally false. I have banned a number of people for expressing hateful opinions -- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.

So which is it -- am I banning and deleting too few people, or too many people?

By the way, we have over 3,000 posted comments already today. Would you, Gabriel Gonzalez, like to take over the task of policing that?

Charles, I'm glad you're here and willing to participate in the discussion. Thanks...

A.L.

While I certainly wouldn't have made the "comments made about the rape and murder of a 16 year old Palestinian girl" that Charles did, I can understand why a Westerner would make them--all you have to do is remember the fire at that girl's school in Saudi where the muttawa were trying to prevent the girls from escaping the fire because they weren't veiled. Stuff like that certainly makes me feel like I don't need to extend the benefit of the doubt to such a society.

Now carry on with your LGF bashing.

Charles,

I am not sure that we are engaging solely in LGF bashing. I'd call it constructive criticism. Much of that criticism is measured, and it is not entirely without basis. And I am not referring to those who condemn LGF outright - I don't agree with that reaction, but frankly can sympathize with it. Now that you've come into the comments here (hopefully with the intention of returning), my two cents on top of my previous remarks.

A.L. is right that LGF pioneered an approach to criticism of events in the Muslim world where others had not yet dared to tread. Much of that was gutsy and admirable, and the right thing to do. But the tone, the feeding of the frenzied mob backstage, the double standard for anti-Muslim hatred versus anti-semitism, etc. is just too much. I think that's too bad, because I think LGF should get wider respect among balanced people, even if you are always going to get some criticism and charges of bigotry. It would nice if those charges were entirely without basis and I can't honestly say that that is the case today.

I'm not going to tell you how to run your blog, and I certainly wouldn't want to "manage" the crazies out back. But I think you could stop encouraging them, even on occasion maybe even discourage them. It would put your main message in a better light.

I have spoken to many bloggers, reasonable people of all stripes who seem to think you have a problem. Since this has no doubt been pointed out to you in the past, I'll just repeat it and leave it at that.

Gabriel Gonzalez
Banned from LGF

cp: I did not make those quoted comments.

Those are cherry-picked out of several hundred comments in a very long thread. FACT: I could easily pick out hundreds of comments from any particular thread at LGF to illustrate compassion, humanity, humor, kindness, and camaraderie. There are vastly more of these than the nasty ones; but somehow people like "Senior Administration Official" only see the negative ones. Why is that?

By the way, people; each and every comments page at LGF carries this disclaimer:

Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.

Is this not clear enough?

Gabriel Gonzalez: you were banned after posting this remark, accusing LGF of being a center for hate speech, Nazis, and white supremacists:

Unfortunately, as your site serves as a vehicle for hate speech (albeit with a preponderance of unobjectionable commentary) and is apparently infested with a number of white supremacists and other sundry bigots, it's a bit pretentious of you to be referring to IndyMedia as "NaziMedia". Pot calling the Kettle black.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no obligation to allow those kinds of insults to be posted on a site I'm paying for, especially when the vast majority of our readers are neither white nor bigoted nor Nazis nor engaging in "hate speech." This is the kind of blanket smear (with a half-hearted disclaimer added) that will get people banned.

And now I understand why you're posting LGF-bashing comments all over the blogosphere. Thanks for reminding me.

Excuse me, but how the hell do you know who I ban and who I delete, and who I don't? Have you been seen my ban file?

No I haven't. That is why I said "I have not seen", because I can't know for sure (I spend a little less time over at LGF than you do.)

I am giving you my impression from my relatively infrequent trips to your comments section - I had hardly thought more than a few were necessary to get the general 'feel' - and that conveyed to me by others (who I consider reliable). I have noted you ban people as "pc trolls", or whatever, I have also seen you, rightly, condemn over-the-top anti-semitic statements, in the very same threads (or at least on the same days) where equally offensive (ie, unnecessarily and over-generalizingly offensive) anti-Muslim have been made. Indeed, I for one have never seen anyone banned for rabid anti-Muslim hatespeech on LGF. But I am glad to see that you are sensitive to the issue.

And now I understand why you're posting LGF-bashing comments all over the blogosphere. Thanks for reminding me.

Charles,

Some have called you thin-skinned. Boy, that's an understatement.

You are absolutely right that it is your site and you don't have to tolerate anyone for any reason. But the example of my "offensive" statement is a pathetically poor one in the light of the dozens of highly offensive comments on LGF that are put up all the time. If you are going to ban me for that level of criticism, while tolerating the far more rabid hate speech that I was criticizing on your site, you've got a real problem. I hope it's only skin deep.

Gabriel: It's pretty clear that you're carrying a grudge. Even after I explained that 1) there are more than 3000 comments a day, and there's no way to police each and every one, and 2) that I do ban people on both sides of the aisle, you're still insisting that you know the real truth of the matter, that I "tolerate rabid hate speech."

You still never answered: am I banning and deleting too few people, or too many? You seem to want to have it both ways.

Gabriel,

I don't visit LGF (although I've clicked through to the site on a few linked stories from other blogs), and I have no desire to defend Charles's opinions or posts, or any of his commenters. And I've read several of your comments on this blog before and have been generally impressed by them.

But -- and no offense is intended here -- I can't think of any message board I visit that would not ban a guest who publically insulted the proprietor by claiming he ran a site that was a vehicle for hate speech and follwed up by insulting the entirety of his userbase as a bunch of white supremacists and other sundry bigots. If the comment that Charles quoted you as making is accurate, you might want to reconsider adopting the I-was-banned-from-his-site martyr stance during the course of this discussion.

I'm moving up two posts.

Charles Johnson's site--as a whole--poses a question that I find to be difficult. What is Islam?

We've all heard Bush's statements about the "Religion of Peace," and I certainly believe that a good portion of the world's one billion Muslims are quite nice people. But who represents Islam?

One of my close friends for the past ten years or so comes from a Muslim background. He was born in the U.S., but his parents were immigrants, and most of his extended family lives in a Muslim country that is frequently in the news. When he went to college, he joined the campus Muslim cultural student group. Then he saw the sort of discourse that went on across the group's email list--as he told me, some pretty vile anti-Semetic ranting went on as a matter of course. He's a bit of a hothead, sometimes, so he yelled back before dropping out of the association. Fortunately, the threats of violence against him stopped after a few months, without serious effect...but I know it was only the presence of a huge Chinese friend that saved him one time.

So my friend's a good guy, and there are other people who aren't. My friend isn't terribly devout, but the guys in that student group probably don't buy into the whole "Islam is the Religion of Peace" idea either. Who speaks for Islam?

As important as the Saturday meditations on Sufi thought here are, Sufi ideology is not the subject of the sermons in Mecca, Medina, or Jerusalem. These cities are said to be holy within the Islamic faith--in fact, a pilgrimage to Mecca is one of the Pillars of Islam. But what do the pilgrims hear in the mosques of Mecca? Death to the Jews and the Americans.

So who is the voice of Islam? If there is hope to be found, that voice is not Wahhabist. But we must not ignore the hate that pours out of the holy cities of Islam, for how can it be inconsequential?

Correction: I'll respond here.

Gabriel: It's pretty clear that you're carrying a grudge.

Charles, that's too easy. You acknowledge that I raise the very objections I am raising now in your comments section (pre-grudge) and was banned for it.

I do ban people on both sides of the aisle... Am I banning and deleting too few people, or too many?

I don't run your site. That does not mean that I am not entitled to an opinion or impression from what I have seen from it (which is not all bad - I am not making that claim).

I was banned from LGF on my second visit there. I was frankly shocked by the racist tone of a number (a minority) of commenters. In particular, I had run into a few comments about dirty Mexicans and lazy immigrants not adopting the "white man's ways". These comments, while not directed at me - more 'around' me - came after I had voiced my objections to intolerant comments of this type in particular because I am Mexican and an immigrant (as are both of my parents), but that should be beside the point. My impression at that time - and frankly I haven't been back for quite some time to refresh that impression - was that LGF did function as a Muslim-bashing immigrant-bashing site, at least in the comments section. It seemed odd to me that these comments could co-exist with the solicitousness about anti-Semitism (which, by the way, I shared). I also did find it ironic that LGF had the chutzpah to be calling IndyMedia "Nazi Media". I mean, you do notice at least the possibility that some might find that hypocritical, don't you (didn't you?).

I can't think of any message board I visit that would not ban a guest who publically insulted the proprietor by claiming he ran a site that was a vehicle for hate speech and follwed up by insulting the entirety of his userbase as a bunch of white supremacists and other sundry bigots.

Shad,

First, I did not "insult the entirety of his userbase". Indeed, I described the preponderance of the comments as unobjectionable.

But you are basically right. If you directly accuse the proprietor of running a site for hate speech, then you should expect to be banned. (I actually do not think that a ban was justified for that statement, but I will admit to being overly confrontational with Charles.) But that is still beside the point. Some of the folks over at LGF are white supremacists (or at least nativists) and certainly bigots. And the entire site did seem, at least at that time, to function as a vehicle for Muslim-bashing and immigrant-bashing. That's sort of the issue here. That may or may not be Charles' fault, but I can't help that.

So, Gabriel et al...here's the question (and it is a question, as opposed to a statement). If some of the posters at Charles' site are 'white supremacists (or at least nativists) and certainly bigots,' and even if Charles were (which I doubt) does that make the site useless and Joe a bad guy for linking to it and me a bad guy for posting on Joe's site?

A.L.

For the record, I'm weighing in on Gabriel's side here. I've encountered his comments here and on Roger Simon's blog and it seems pretty clear to me that he has a balanced mind.

I for one agree with his characterization of LGF as expressed by the comment which got him banned. It's remarkable to me that something so obvious should be unacceptable to Charles. I cannot but implore you to open your eyes, and read through all the comments you willfully host on your site. Others are reading it, and who knows what ideas they're getting in their heads?

Charles, you seem pretty sensitive to smears. That's fair, but there's quite a bit of smearing of Muslims on your site, no?

Armed Liberal,

If I may, I think it does make Joe a bad guy for linking to LGF (if he has? I'm assuming since you said...) There are six degrees to everything right? So we're all connected to white supremacists somehow. But the blogosphere is all about linking to make your point or direct your readers to juicy tidbits of news, commentary or whatever. If you're linking to LGF without any sort of disclaimer, then you're vouching for that site -- all of it.

I think the best way to think of this is this: the innocence test -- would you send your kids there to get informed about the world?

You may call me "thin-skinned," but the accusations that there are "white supremacists" at LGF is one of the most disgusting lies I've seen yet. Go tell that to Julie Manyata, an African American GI who posts frequently. Go tell that to our many Pakistani and Indian readers. Go tell it to Alex of the 12th Man, who is also African American.

You people are flat-out lying, in your transparent attempt to smear LGF.

So Kori -- were you banned from LGF too? What name did you post under?

So who is the voice of Islam?

Well, I'm going to go back to my earlier point about the French media defining Muslim extremists (suicide bombers, Hamas, the Iraqi 'resistance', etc.) as the essential representatives of who Muslims are, unfortunately more or less approvingly (or at least sympathetically) in the case of the French media.

I also know a lot of Muslims: three of my professional colleagues in my office (two of whom are good friends) are Muslims - two from Morocco and one from Tunisia. They are also largely pro-American and anti-Islamist. In particular, they view French policies towards the Arab world as extremely misguided. They are also basically ordinary educated cosmopolitan yuppies. (All of them find LGF offensive, though only one of them is an avid blog reader.)

I think you have to recognize when there is a cancer spread throughout an entire culture. Something like 75% of Muslims support bin Laden and many applaud suicide bombing (although I have no idea what the figures are among educated Muslims and I might question the real depth of the broader support). I certainly wouldn't want to define the moderates and modernists out of the Muslim world, even if they are a minority.

Charles, keep ducking and weaving. Unfortunately you are responsible for the tone of your site and the comments, despite your best efforts to shed responsibility. (And you have the gal to criticize Marcos Zuniga!)

The comments I found were not "cherry-picked" they were the product of a 2 minute search. If you want, I can spend an hour this weekend and really get down to it. But I have no real desire to dig through the filth you engender every day.

FACT: I could easily pick out hundreds of comments from any particular thread at LGF to illustrate compassion, humanity, humor, kindness, and camaraderie.

Maybe towards "us." Never towards them. The only Muslims in your world are murderers and rapists.

Shame on you, sir.

Sam Barnes,

I can't for the life of me think who the Voice of Christianity might be! So I doubt "Islam" is any different. Wikipedia gives a small overview of the different denominations here. Briefly, there are around 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today; 80% are Sunni (which is broken into four schools of thought), the rest are mostly Shi'a. There are also Ibadi Muslims, Wahhabis, Sufis and Baktashi (which are sometimes classified under the Sunni or Shi'a).

Ask the risk of wading into a controversy where angels fear to tread...

I met Charles about two years ago. I was relatively new to blogging and I didn't know about his blog. He was a very nice man and I checked out his blog. It wasn't my cup of tea, but he seemed like a good guy and I linked LGF.

I popped over a couple of times, but like I said, it wasn't my cup of tea, so I stopped reading it. Many, many months later, I was prompted to take another look and was rather off-put by what I saw. But it was his blog to do with what he wants, so I just quietly de-linked LGF from my blog.

Aside from some of the commenters, I think I finally figured out what my problem is with LGF: from the stuff I read, it only reports the bad stuff going on in the Arab and Islamic worlds. Al Jazeera is taken to task, but there appears to be no recognition that Qatar allowed the US to base military operations there. Today, there was no indication that a Jordanian court ordered the death penalty for eight people convicted of assassinating a US diplomat.

Not all of the Arab and Islamic worlds are anti-American or anti-Western, but if you want to believe they are, LGF is your one-stop shop to help confirm that belief.

It's Charles' blog, he can do with it as he chooses, and I don't have to read it. It probably serves, however, as flypaper for the FBI units that investigate domestic hate-groups. In that respect, it serves a useful purpose.

Kori -

Yes, I'd send my kids to LGF, and in fact have done so as they were researching various projects for school. I've also sent them to Indymedia and DU, as well as daily Kos and others.

As I've noted, the discussions there (LGF) leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth; I've raised the pioint here as well as face to face with Charles. Charles reasonably responded then (as now) that it's overwhelming given the volumes he deals with; I also think that his calibrations are somewhat ... wider-set ... than mine. I have a very narrow idea of what I want from these discussion threads, and I get it; serious, sometimes impassioned, discussion of isses that matter to me. I'm certainly more strict than Charles is, and my standards are different as well.

I've dealt with serious racists in my life (as noted, I'm a somewhat dark-skinned mutt), and in my experience with Charles, I don't believe him to be one.

I think he's further along the path of believing that a major conflict with the Arab world is inevitible than I am, but I think that the odds he's right aren't insiginificant. I'm paddling as hard as I can to keep it from coming true.

A.L.

Charles, I wasn't banned from your site. I've only gone a few times because other bloggers linked to them and I was curious. But I have no desire to visit there again, despite your (I assume) best intentions. It seems you could go further in this argument if you advocated on the part of unrestrained free speech, but otherwise, it's pretty obvious the type of company you apparently voluntarily keep. I cannot stand such hate and I abhor the fact that it might give people the impression that it's okay to hate Muslims. Given our history with the Holocaust, and indeed our own founding, I would say it's pretty obvious that religious persecution is a dangerous activity to participate in (or encourage). It's a fine line between criticizing another's religion justly and advocating, even through implication, wholesale smears of it. You've clearly gone way beyond it.

I may piss a few people off here--honest to God, I don't mean to. But some of you guys need to lighten up a bit. I've only been to LGF once, but I enjoy dropping in on Idiotarian Rottweiler periodically to have a giggle at the nutballs. I don't bother to comment. What would be the use? Those people aren't arguing; they're ranting. But I mean c'mon, they're cartoons, walking postmodern parodies of themselves. I don't come away from Idiotarian Rottweiler hating Muslims. I come away from it laughing at the head cases that comment there.

Kori -

Let me roll a skunk into the discussion.

You say '...I would say it's pretty obvious that religious persecution is a dangerous activity to participate in (or encourage).'

What if the religion involved is bad? What if it, as a mainstream value, advocates things which we find horrible and intolerable?

You're starting out pretty much as the rest of us do; assuming that everyone is the same except that they eat spicier food than we do and wear more interesting clothers (hyperbole, I know, but bear with me).

What if they aren't?

A.L.

Charles deletes "PC" posts rather quickly, A.L.

Why not the disgusting, cruel, inhumane ones? I guess it's ok to joke about rape, murder, "Yassin-like piles of arms and legs."

Haha, right? I'm sure if I referred to a "Babi Yar-like pile" it wouldn't last 3 seconds, and thank God.

Of course it's inevitably us and them, A.L. (re: your last post) But there are degrees and limits to everything, and Charles is way over the line over and over again. Don't buy his whole "I have thousands of comments" line, he polices them well enough for what offends him.

It's what doesn't offend him that is rather scary.

Ann Salisbury wrote:

Aside from some of the commenters, I think I finally figured out what my problem is with LGF: from the stuff I read, it only reports the bad stuff going on in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Currently on LGF's front page is a story about Pakistan cracking down on Islamic terror gangs, two or three links to Iraqi blogs who exhibit a refreshing level of awareness, and a link to a piece by Arab writer Nonie Darwish decrying the Islamic radicalism on campuses.

Charles, I wasn't banned from your site. I've only gone a few times because other bloggers linked to them and I was curious. But I have no desire to visit there again, despite your (I assume) best intentions. It seems you could go further in this argument if you advocated on the part of unrestrained free speech, but otherwise, it's pretty obvious the type of company you apparently voluntarily keep. I cannot stand such hate and I abhor the fact that it might give people the impression that it's okay to hate Muslims. Given our history with the Holocaust, and indeed our own founding, I would say it's pretty obvious that religious persecution is a dangerous activity to participate in (or encourage). It's a fine line between criticizing another's religion justly and advocating, even through implication, wholesale smears of it. You've clearly gone way beyond it.

SAO -

I'll suggest that each of us has a voice (in the sense of a voice in a choir) in this discussion. I don't think that Charles' is a voice of calm consideration and debate, as I don't think that Frank J's is or Mike Hendrix's is. (Note that I obviously want to wrap that mantle around us here)

You know what he is.

I know what he is, although you & I may characterize him differently (and I'm working on a post on the role of anger right now).

Why does characterizing him make him not someone whose work is useful and sometimes intersting, if distasteful?

Heiddeger is a good philosopher, even if he was an awful man. Arendt is a good philsoopher, even if she loved Heiddiger - even after the war.

I can point to as many cases of this as I have time for.

A.L.

Did I double post? Sorry about that! You're free to delete it AL! :-)

I'll get back to you soon. Have to run out for a moment.

By the way, we have over 3,000 posted comments already today.

That's pretty good evidence that Charles can be separated from any line crossing that may occur in the comments. He can't police it, and either he does provide a forum or he doesn't. The argument that he can anticipate some line crossing in the comments every time he posts doesn't prove responsibility. Because, again, either he does provide a forum or he doesn't, and it's pretty clear that it's good that he does. It might be a different story if most of the comments were racist; but I don't believe they are.

LGF bashing is easy only if you assume that in principle no culture should ever be subjected to vehement criticism, and only if you assume that whenever such criticism is in bad form it's racist. These assumptions just aren't true.

LGF bashing is hard if you believe that we have an important duty to demand that all cultures meet basic moral standards, and that even making this demand by expressing indignation in bad form is in fulfilment of the duty. LGF bashing is wrongheaded if most LGF commenters are attempting to fulfill the duty, in one form or another. It's simply not good to brand someone a racist when in fact he is fulfilling an important duty, albeit in bad form.

In short, LGF bashers are going to have to prove that taking the mickey out of Arab culture is always racist, because it certainly isn't obvious that it is. Otherwise, bash the particular racist commenters (as sometimes LGFers do, by the way), and leave the blog alone.

Thank you, Charles, for all the highly informative posts you've given us these last few years.

Because of the subject that Charles covers a lot, the bad side of Islam, LGF gets a number of disagreeable people. That includes racists of all stripes. However, his time is limited. Perhaps Charles should consider having someone act as a "policeman", or something. Of course, there goes the idea of "unmoderated comments."

Perhaps the solution would be simply to ban nobody. Leave everything in. I mean, that is the only way to be fair, right?

I understand, A.L. But shouldn't there be realistic limits for what one can say and remain "under the mantle?"

"Religion of hate, religion of wife-scalping, religion of ignorance." or, (referring to Americans he disagrees with) "The fifth column."

You don't compromise with a fifth column, you silence them. Notice, Charles isn't interested in "mantles", he's interested in war.

Does that make the site useless and Joe a bad guy for linking to it and me a bad guy for posting on Joe's site?

Well, no. Not in my opinion. LGF is still one of the best sites on the web for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Muslim world, and terrorism. I certainly find information there I would not (at least easily) find elsewhere. It focuses largely on the negative, as Ann points out, but that's partly its orientation, to alert its readers to threats coming from that part of the world.

I also don't think Charles Johnson is a bigot, as opposed to someone who tolerates them for his own reasons. Indeed, he seems not even to acknowledge that they could exist, which I find odd. It is one thing to say that the vast majority of the commenters are not bigots (indeed, almost all of us here have been commenters on LGF at one time) or that he can't control them. It's another to say they don't even exist. I think Charles' over-sensitivity to criticism is a bit silly, but maybe it reflects a realization on some level that there is an arguably legitimate concern. (?)

I'm done. The smear going on here is painfully obvious; out of context quotes, out of context thread titles, outright lies, and a whole lot of willfull blindness. Have fun, kids.

P.S. Thank you, Jim, for the kind words.

SAO -

Well, so far, Charles has certainly participated in a reasonable, if passionate discusison here, so what would lead you to think thst he doesn't fit?

A.L.

Oh, cry me a river, Charles. Did we represent you out of context? The irony is killing me.

You can at least stand up for yourself, not whine.

The argument that he can anticipate some line crossing in the comments every time he posts doesn't prove responsibility... LGF bashing is easy only if you assume that in principle no culture should ever be subjected to vehement criticism, and only if you assume that whenever such criticism is in bad form it's racist. These assumptions just aren't true... LGF bashing is hard if you believe that we have an important duty to demand that all cultures meet basic moral standards, and that even making this demand by expressing indignation in bad form is in fulfilment of the duty.

Jim,

How many straw men are you going to put up here? Have you read any of the previous comments to note what is being criticized? Because it has little to do with the platitudes you are defending here.

I wasn't expecting him to come here and start freaking out. He's an intelligent and funny guy, that's why his blog's so popular. But he's also being disingenous and coping-out lame excuses left and right.

Did you look at his site again, A.L.? Click "all entries" and compare the post-titles.

Charles may very well be right. Maybe we're facing something so goddamn ugly and dangerous that all we should do is convince everybody how ugly it is before it's too late. I just don't think we're there yet. Nor do I think we're on the losing side of this struggle.

Charles has certainly participated in a reasonable, if passionate discusison here, so what would lead you to think thst he doesn't fit?

A.L.,

There are two main issues at LGF: (i) throwing the red meat (the posts themselves) and (ii) driving the crowd in the back in a particularly (hateful) direction. I can sort of deal with the red meat - hey, how positive can you get with this kind of stuff? - and I don't fault Charles for lack of crowd control (as some here are implying), but rather controling the crowd in a particular way (as others suggest). Even here, I'm willing to consider that maybe my perceptions have been skewed or are incomplete. What troubles me is that Charles doesn't recognize a problem when there clearly is one.

Kori,

Not so fast. There IS a difference here between Christianity and Islam in terms of locating a voice. Sure, Islam has competing strains of ideology (of which Wahhabism and Sufism are but two), and so does Christianity (Catholics, various Protestant sects, etc.).

However, if you want to know about Catholic theology, the Pope's not a bad guy to start with, as a source. If you want to know about mainstream Protestant theology, Billy Graham has been pretty influential in the modern era. Yeah, there's disagreement, but it's not that hard to find a short list of major ideological power centers in Christianity.

What about Islam? I'm not necessarily talking about a singular voice, like the Pope, since Islam is more akin to Protestantism in its decentralization. But who are the most influential thinkers? When your average Muslim considers the Koran, of whom does he think, "That guy explains my beliefs persuasively and well"?

A pilgrimage to Mecca is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Islamic tradition clearly recognizes certain cities as holy. As such, it seems to me that the mullahs and imams of those cities would have a bigger soapbox on which to stand within the faith. Wouldn't the title, Most Revered Mullah of Mecca mean something to a Muslim, whether he was from Saudi Arabia or Indonesia?

Charles Johnson has pointed out over and over and over again that the religious leaders of Islam's holiest cities preach a message of hatred--aimed at the Jews and the West. Based on my reasoning above, isn't this a topic of concern? If these guys truly speak for Islam, then a war of civilizations is inevitable--one that both sides will lose, but the Islamic side will be obliterated. If there are other voices, however, there is still hope.

Ayatollah Sistani may be a sufficiently reasonable man with enough influence in his world to start building an ideological power center that is not at war with the West. I hope there are others as well that can wrest the heart of Islam from the Wahhabists, for the sake of my friend and his family at the very least.

Armed Liberal,

You see, I wouldn't send my kids there under any circumstances, unless as an experiment in understanding the diversity of views existing in this world. But then I would wait until they were pretty mature and able to think critically.

It's clear to me that not all adults are able to think critically.

I don't think it's an adequate excuse for the type of speech at LGF to say one cannot police all the comments on one's site because of volume. This seems like shirking responsiblity to me. Either you're responsible for them or you're not -- there's no number after which it's acceptable to let a few of the obscene ones go.

That said, you see, I'm not arguing that Charles has a certain worldview -- I'm not criticizing him directly so much as I am his site -- his entire site. So whether he holds racist/bigotted views or not is not so significant as to whether racist/bigotted views abound on his site for all to see.

If you will, I consider myself a "paddler" against uncivil political discussion and more dear to me, hate in general.

Now, regarding the skunk:

What if the religion involved is bad? What if it, as a mainstream value, advocates things which we find horrible and intolerable?

Well, that depends on whether it puts its thought into action (including speech) or not. We must see the difference between politics (where we are allowed legitimate dissent) and religion (which, we believe, all are free to reasonably practice).

You see, what we find horrible or intolerable politically is not necessarily the same as what we find horrible or intolerable religiously. Consider abortion, capital punishment, even the issue of whether one should go to church or not. Politics and religion collide when discussion over a society's "values" is necessary in the case of resolving a political issue. But it's important to put the donkey before the cart -- the discussion is political in nature, first. Which means it must have certain references that will differ from those used in a religious discussion.

This is important because we speak of the Muslim world, but even a quick visit to Wikipedia indicates that there are lots of Muslims out there, and lots of different kinds. Furthermore, they live in lots of different countries, with different histories, socieities and cultures. So, it's not really possible to speak of a "bad" religion in this case, as it encompasses so much as to be meaningless, but even if we did, we're having a religious discussion, not a political discussion. In which case, the most important concept to remember is freedom of religion.

If you are talking about speech ("advocation of things we find horrible and intolerable"), then there is reason to believe that it is an action, then it may be political in nature, and all political issues may be legitimately discussed (freedom of speech) and all that. Even if the speech is religious in nature, if the speech is advocating actions intolerable to our political system (terrorism, forced wearing of veils, etc.), then it's not appropriate. So I guess my answers to your questions are: if a religion is "bad" in your view, then have a respectful constructive discussion about it. If people, religious or not, are advocating things we find intolerable politically then have a political discussion about it.

Don't mix the two.

It's very confusing when it appears that people either live in political systems that are religious in nature (Iran, Saudi Arabia...), or they invoke religion in advocating political action (AQ, Hamas, Palestine), but religion and politics are not the same. The cure-all to the Arab world's Islamic political problem is the concept of freedom of religion, in my opinion. The fact that these advocates don't tolerate religious dissent among their fellow travellers in this world is the number one indication that they would/do rule oppressively with public policy.

But when "we" show intolerance towards Islam and not Islamist politics (as exhibited on LGF), then we are suffering from the same bigotry that has lead those people to advocate oppressive politics. We're, in ideas and speech at least, no better.

I visit WoC and LGF daily.

I avoid the comments on LGF because of reason stated above, while I always scan the comments on WoC. WoC is exceptional in the quality of comments. And I know they work hard to maintain this valued aspect of their blog.

Charles could not possibly provide what he provides for his readers and foster commentors as the WoCers do. These are very different types of blogs. However, you can separate the blog from the commentors.

There is no doubt that Charles is especially harsh to some segments of the Islamic world. In my view, the criticism is much deserved. But to characterize his blog as complete Muslim bashing is erroneous. And even if I don't agree with everything Charles himself may write, I find the majority of his posts interesting and educational.

There are cultures that encourage bad behavior. There are news biases that allow this to go unquestioned. There are folks like SAO and Kori who think it's racist to bring such behavior into the open. And then those who apologize for such cultures.

I think Charles should be commended for bringing so much news of this nature to one location, without allowing himself to be stifled by objections to his commentors or by accusations of bigotry or racism. And I hope that similar accusations against Joe and AL do not cause these gentlemen to rethink their link to LGF.

CBK

Sam Barnes,

But who are the most influential thinkers?

I don't know! (Honestly.) But it's a good question. I'm sure there are plenty.

When your average Muslim considers the Koran, of whom does he think, "That guy explains my beliefs persuasively and well"?

Well, first off, Mohammed. But I think more importantly, I don't think that among 1.3 billion people, you can find an "average Muslim". I know far more about Christians and I can't even envision what an "average Christian" would look like (the difference in Protestants and Catholics being pretty different already -- like Sunni and Shi'a?). If you consider Buddhism for example, of which there many many adherants, there is no "average Buddhist" -- and the "masters" which Buddhists follow can differ quite considerably (at least they think so). Externally speaking, it's easy to see them as one big lump but when it comes down to it, I don't think 1.3 billion people are being brainwashed to sing the same tune, or even five different tunes -- I don't think that's possible.

Whether hate speech, even when religious, is a topic of concern I addressed in my post above.

As I understand it, Islam can be overtly political, much the way the Catholic Church was for most of its existence (mixing with European kings/emperors and all that). I don't know enough about it to address this issue, but what these folks really need (in my humble opinion) is an injection of independent thought à la Luther. On the outside, as a non-Islamist state, the US would do better to advocate that than some sort of attempt at converting them to American thought. It's a fine line, and certainly many Americans (multiculturalists, postmodernists) have been faulted for thinking Muslims are naturally sheep, but they're not. They were taught to be sheep. Let's not play the same game and treat them that way too. As soon as stop seeing people as individuals, we're on a slippery slope to violence.

Charles seeks to provocative. And he certainly succeeds. Based on the comments that his blog can be informative, I guess he provokes thought, but it is also clear from his comments that he provokes hate. He can alter his language to maximize the former and minimize the latter. He chooses not to. That's informative.

But when "we" show intolerance towards Islam and not Islamist politics (as exhibited on LGF), then we are suffering from the same bigotry that has lead those people to advocate oppressive politics. We're, in ideas and speech at least, no better.

If they can't manage to find separation between their religion and their politics, how can we discuss the politics without discussing the religion?

And how do you discuss those whose goal is to politicize the religion? And those who use religion as the tool to control politics? Particularly with so many schools of thought involved?

Perhaps we could just label all those Muslims (those who mix politics and religion to the point of being indistiguishable and those who advocate harm and hate and barbarism through religion) under one simple banner...

Something like, oh, I don't know, "Religion of Peace ™ "

But when "we" show intolerance towards Islam and not Islamist politics (as exhibited on LGF), then we are suffering from the same bigotry that has lead those people to advocate oppressive politics. We're, in ideas and speech at least, no better.

If they can't manage to find separation between their religion and their politics, how can we discuss the politics without discussing the religion?

And how do you discuss those whose goal is to politicize the religion? And those who use religion as the tool to control politics? Particularly with so many schools of thought involved?

Perhaps we could just label all those Muslims (those who mix politics and religion to the point of being indistiguishable and those who advocate harm and hate and barbarism through religion) under one simple banner...

Something, oh, I don't know, something with a little sarcasm, a little irony...

How about something like... "Religion of Peace ™ "

Let's step back for a minute and ask ourselves: what good is being accomplished by the continual gnashing of the teeth?

We know there's a problem in the Middle East.

It's in our interest to strengthen the hand of moderate voices within Islam; that's why I like Joe's posts on Sufism, for instance.

So why foster an environment that simply raises hackles and is likely to turn off moderate Arabs? If someone makes fun of your parents, for instance, even if you've done the same, you get pissed. It's natural to align ourselves with those close to us when they're attacked, and anti-colonialism is a powerful unifying force. No need to enable it.

We're supposed to be the good guys, remember?

As for policing 3,000 comments, having clear posting rules and routinely and fairly enforcing them leads to good behavior.

I think Charles should be commended for bringing so much news of this nature to one location, without allowing himself to be stifled by objections to his commentors or by accusations of bigotry or racism.

He has been so commended. I commend him. To that extent and with the reservations expressed. He is going to get these types of objections pretty much no matter what he does. That does not insulate him from legitimate criticism.

The simple answer to all these questions is, when you don't know, learn.

If they can't manage to find separation between their religion and their politics, how can we discuss the politics without discussing the religion? And how do you discuss those whose goal is to politicize the religion? And those who use religion as the tool to control politics? Particularly with so many schools of thought involved?

Oh, but some of them can. We should show political support for them. To engage "the other half", point out how much worse off, materially, states are that do mix religion and politics are. Appeal to their common sense. Economic leverage helps here. We've got a lot of good things to share with them here -- freedom of religion/speech, capitalism -- if we stopped thinking of the masses as the enemy, we might be able to engage them productively, constructively.

pratike...

What is served by ignoring what goes on in the Mosques of Mecca? Or what goes on between the Palestinians and Israelis? How is the Muslim world served by ignoring this?

Why not accept both Joe's Sufi Saturday and LFG's Middle East News Harvest?

You say...

Let's step back for a minute and ask ourselves: what good is being accomplished by the continual gnashing of the teeth?

I'll tell you...

We are a forgetful people. We get comfortable in our comfortable (comparatively) lives.

I fear, and I believe Charles does too, that if we don't remind ourselves of what goes on in the world of our enemies, we will become complacent and be nailed again.

Your parent analogy can be turned too. If you see your father was a deadbeat, you may decide, once you accept this and learn the true characteristics of a deadbeat, then choose no to be anything like your father.

Hmmm... don't remember suggesting ignoring anything. Just questioning the value of a nearly-constant stream of invective, and the tacit tolerance of the same type of speech that we abhor. It's not enough to issue a disclaimer. We must set an example for others to follow, and police them when they don't.

Remember: Or-La'amim.

This is A.L. I'm pulling posts that suggest - or respond to - the notion of shutting down LGF. As noted, I'm not in the business of shutting down other blogs, and I have no interest in seeing my blog used for that.

If you were responding to the poster who suggested the shutdown, please accept my apologies, but I don't even want the topic raised here.

A.L.

This is A.L. I'm pulling posts that suggest - or respond to - the notion of shutting down LGF. As noted, I'm not in the business of shutting down other blogs, and I have no interest in seeing my blog used for that.

If you were responding to the poster who suggested the shutdown, please accept my apologies, but I don't even want the topic raised here.

A.L.

Charles has started a thread encouraging LGFers to respond to your attacks on his site:

Now feel the wrath of his lizardoid minions!

LGF Attacked at Winds of Change

"LGF and all of our readers and commenters are under attack (“white supremacists,” “Nazis,” “hate speech,” etc. etc. you know the drill) at Winds of Change. I’ve had my say. Perhaps some of you might want to defend yourselves against these accusations too."

Is this really what you wanted, Armed Liberal?

Gabriel Gonzalez And the entire site did seem, at least at that time, to function as a vehicle for Muslim-bashing and immigrant-bashing. 


You are way too precious for this Jihad on the West, Jihad on Spain, Jihad on Israel,
Jihad on the USA, Jihad on India, Jihad in Chechnya, Jihad on Kosovo, Jihad on Philippines and so
on.

Um, Mr. "LGF is Hateful," your analysis is a bit thin. Don't you think? An activist is no good without analysis.

Gabriel, I'm not sure how to reply to your charge of straw man. Perhaps the problem is that you and I would disagree over what counts as hyperbole/bad form in LGF comments and what counts as racist/bigoted. I don't think spouting, for example, "Religion of suicide bombing!" is necessarily bigoted. It might even be uttered by an extremely indignant and peace-loving Muslim at his bellicose coreligionists.

if any of you can provide sufficient examples of tolerant islamic religious leaders outside of sufism, please do. otherwise, you will have to admit that LGF representation of muslim world is correct. do not complain about the mirror when the face is ugly...

Search results for Paleostinian (352 matches)

How is this word "Paleostinian"  a bigoted word? It's the truth. These yobs are living in the stone age (paleolithic) same as Sadr's armed Shi'ite mob in Iraq.

Read up on the life of Muhammad ya doofus. Read up on his life of thievery, murder, war crimes and pedophilia. Then consider that the Koran commands the faithful to emulate the "exemplary" life of Muhammad. This is why we have a huge problem.

Total # of comments cited by "LGF is hateful": 707.

Total # of comments at LGF: 648,025.

Percentage of "hateful comments": 0.00109 %.

Armed Liberal:

"I think that the good thing about our side is that we're willing to accept the humanity of everyone - including our enemies,..."

I do believe that this is exactly your downfall (and hopefully not mine). You do not see your enemy as an enemy. When you are attacked, your enemy is somehow a victim, their behavior caused in some way by the "system" or your own behavior.

I'm willing to admit to what I see... We are in a rapidly growing global ideological war. World War III or IV, I don't care how it's labeled. The enemy likes to call it "Global Jihad". Perhaps you wish to give up your freedoms and surrender right now, so we will avoid all violence. It would be the peaceful thing to do, right? All violence is bad, right?

You are naive.

There is a solution to this. For those offended by Charles' weblog, don't read it. It is after all a personal diary. A very informative one, I might add, that frequently has information not found in very many other places in the blogosphere (that is my bias showing). If you feel strongly enough about something, start your own weblog. If you are interesting enough and have something important enough to say, you will find readers who you too can hopefully sway in the "right way". If you can't find sufficient readers to support your weblog, maybe what you are saying is not really a universal truth.

Technically, Charles' 1st rights can't be violated without state action. Then again, there are certain non-discrimination requirements (different amendment) if you're a place of public accomodation, but that hasn't been applied to the net. Yet. Also, Charles isn't a protected class for those purposes (again, probably). I think Charles would lose that suit, but it might be close.

And by the way, not one of the words cited by "LGF is hateful" can be found in anything I have written.

As an Arab and a (fairly) regular participant on LGF, I find racist not LGF, but the anti-war people and sites such as this, people who would rather see us suffer under the brutality of Arab and Islamic regimes lest, god forbid, America should protect itself.

why do you not protest against the Arab and Islamic opression of women? the brutal Syrian occupation of Lebanon? the PA/PLO's terrorism of Palestinian dissidents? The endemic mutilation of girls' genitals in Egypt?

Do you actually care about the well-being of Arabs? or only about venting your hostility towards America?

By the way, LGF has at least 4 arab regulars. How many arabs and muslims do you have participating here?

You are the racists, not LGF

This is A.L. I'm pulling posts that suggest - or respond to - the notion of shutting down LGF. As noted, I'm not in the business of shutting down other blogs, and I have no interest in seeing my blog used for that.

If you were responding to the poster who suggested the shutdown, please accept my apologies, but I don't even want the topic raised here.

A.L.

By the way, as an aside...
If you want to learn how to set up and do web pages and a weblog, go to Charles' weblog and use the links that he kindly provides to a host of sites with specific information on creating web pages, CSS, etc. Really good stuff, so no darn excuses. Stop whining and start blogging.

I suppose we'd need to ban Kos from the "intarweb" then, too, wouldn't we?

Listen - did you ever hear about an organization called the ACLU?

Did you know that they protect the Nazi Party?

Did you know they protect the Nation of Islam?

Did you know they protect A.N.S.W.E.R?

Do you even understand what free speech is?

Do you understand that free speech means that right-wingers can't stifle you?

Do you understand that free speech means you can't stifle the right-wing?

You will never, ever, ever convince someone you're right by forcing them to shut up. If anything, you'll teach them quite the opposite.

Ever heard of learn by example?

You apparently have never heard of any of these ideas .

Yo! LGF is Hateful. . .

Do you realize that you managed to come up with a percentage of 1.345 to the -03?

807 out of over 600,000 comments verging on 11,000 posts. You could toss in Nuke Mecca and/or Medina and several other objectionable comments and you still would have the barest fraction of 1% of the total comments made on LGF.

Look, you all seem like reasonably pleasant people but I side with Charles in this; Islam is both religion and political movement, dangerously so. More politics these days than religion in fact. It is the Red Scare of the 21st century and should be treated as such. What frightens me is the refusal of so many to stare cold harsh truth in the face and be willing to call things what they are.

I don't like the hateful comments either though there have been rare times where I've allowed passion to overrule discretion. To broadbrush the entire site as hateful, fascist, white supremacist or in some other way dismiss it is to bury your head in the sand and hope those bad people go away.

I'm also a (fairly) regular participant at LGF. Yes, there are a few posters that take things too far, usually just after another homicide bombing in Israel or somesuch.

But often the offense that sets off the PC trolls (and yes, that's what I honestly consider them) is when Charles simply points out something that's a fact, like the bile spilling out of Egyptian state-run papers, or the often shocking results of opinion polls in the Arab world, or something similar.

I don't think there's much hate there that isn't righteously earned.

First of all those who uncomfortable with LGF please answer me one question...

What is you opinion of the Taliban, of muslim extremists and of Terrorism in general.

Does LGF in any way shape or form say that it is attempting to give a description of all of Islam? Many times it posts links to comments from Moderate Islams and we applaud those who stand up to terrorism.

We all hope and pray that a true moderate voice of Islam will show it self....CAIR is not it.

While the comments section is at times filled with reactionay and incinderiary comments. The worst of these usually are a result of a horriffic attack on women and children.

Now if women and children being deliberately murdered does not enrage you, there is no further point of discussion.

LGF helps to shine a light of awareness onto many of the ugly truths of Militant Islam and the dangers we face in the world today. I do not post often, but I do post. Does that make me a racist now? Should I tell my friend and co worker when he gets back from Pakistan to hate me?

LGF is helping to ask the questions and raise the points about terrorism and the middle east, that our politicians are too afraid and too concerned with re election to bring up.

If we are upset over the celebration of American soldiers deaths and you have a problem with that I suggest you stay away.

I am going link 2 examples to ask you all a question.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10503_An_Iraqi_on_Al-Sadr

now this article is from an Iraqi criticizing Sadr is he a racist?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10492_The_Watchers_Are_Watching_Us

Then this interesting post that seems to foretell this drive to attack LGF.

I love WoC for excellent articles and breakdowns of current events. It would be a shame if you were also accused of hate speech simply because of comments posted on your site.

Because those out there who do not want Terrorism discussed for what it is, who want the US to go back to sleep....thats what they will do...

I have seen endless debates on the comments section with those who disagree with the majority. Those who keep it civil, do not spew vile and racist remarks, and do not attempt to label the site racist...Stay and they come back.....

Debate ideas ...please discuss the issues he raises, but do not attempt to silence him because you do not like the truth as he sees it.

You neo-liberals are so clueless!

When you constantly shelter Muslims from criticism of their religion, you not only are complicit in cheating them out of a reformation, but also of the opportunity to be more whole.

Thank you Charles for not being intimidated by the PC thought police.

As an lgf regular of Palestinian muslim stock (and an avid Winds of Change reader as well, although I don't comment here as often), I find the suggestion that lgf is a racist hate site laughable. Individual posters may go around the bend, but they don't reflect the group consensus there. Most of the time, they get yelled down. If they don't, it's because they're being ignored, not because they're being agreed with.

I wish lgf had a way to sort threads by conversations; it would make it immediately obvious that the most hateful posters are either chastised or ignored.

The claim that Charles is racist or hateful is untenable. It's clear that being unable to convincingly pin the "racist" button onto his lapel is driving some of his critics batty. The best they can come up with is "he refuses to ban some of the hateful posters". Thin gruel. He also won't ban some of the longest-running trolls (I'll be kind: persistent contrarians) such as Gordon, DU Jimbo and BPP. view from Ireland lasted over two years before he had to ban her for only derailing threads, never contributing anything. That's remarkable tolerance.

I wonder how long the Republican versions of those four would last on Democratic Underground.

It's pretty clear that his quickest ban triggers are egregiously offensive posts and the obnoxious trolls that assume multiple identities and carry out imaginary conversations with themselves. And spammers. I think the chief complaint here is that Charles isn't following the exact parameters for banning people that the complainants think that they would follow in his shoes. I suggest that the obvious rejoinder to that is to start your own site, and police it accordingly! Charles has his personal system, and he's comfortable with the result. Deal. You don't have to read the comments; you don't have to read lgf at all. Why so much venom at the site? FreeRepublic and Democratic Underground, among others, have far rowdier, viler comments but don't seem to inspire anywhere near such dedicated energetic denunciation. Every few weeks, this same conversation turns up on yet another blog. In Charles' shoes, I'd be much thinner-skinned in the face of such repetitive tedium (I'm not talking about Armed Liberal, but some of the commentors in this thread). He's quite patient to keep explaining himself, as if he owed someone like Gabriel Gonzalez an accounting of his actions and inner moral compass.

I enjoy Winds of Change for some of the most astute analysis available anywhere, including the comments, but the quality of the comments is way down on this particular thread. Not everyone, please don't be offended, unless you're one of the clowns who knows who you are. In that case, yes, I'm talking about you.

I've been reading LGF for nearly a year and I have NEVER seen a SINGLE racist comment by Charles.

Y'all are calling LGF racist because crying "racist" is the last-ditch argument of the far left. Disagree with FoxNews? They're "racist!" Don't like W? it's a "racist administration!"

Why don't you on the Left have some dignity and make principled arguments instead of just name-calling?

This is A.L. I'm pulling posts that suggest - or respond to - the notion of shutting down LGF. As noted, I'm not in the business of shutting down other blogs, and I have no interest in seeing my blog used for that.

If you were responding to the poster who suggested the shutdown, please accept my apologies, but I don't even want the topic raised here.

A.L.

Okay, late to the thread, but perhaps have a thought or two...

Several people don't like the tone of many of posters at LGF.

Why this matters has not been established, but still, an interesting point, given the popularity of the sight.

Here is my feedback, as a daily reader and occasional poster. Some of the comments are certainly crude, non-PC, occasionally hurtful, inaccurate, poorly considered, and quite frankly, lazy.

In short, they represent a fairly average cross-section of American political life. This does not make me proud, per se, but life is life. As a professional journalist, I deal with it all the time.

But that's not good enough, since we are talking about a broader issue here, which is whether LGF and "the minions" are hateful and having a negative effect on discourse.

The answer to that is.....no. Hell no.

I have found--and so will you---that the preponderance of angry remarks at LGF is in direct correspondance to what has been posted By CJ. For example, given Hamas/Al-Aqsa MB, Hizbollah's infatuation with slaughtering large amounts of Jews whose crime it is to go to work on a crosstown bus, should CJ post the news of this...maybe a picture or two of a bloody stump, especailly if it's a kids...well, some of his Jewish readers who've lost relatives, or worry about ones over there, or even the rest of us, who've headr far off, unpleasant things about ovens in years gone by, and read MEMRI....well, they get pissed.

CJ got pissed and stayed pissed. He takes it personally, I guess, which might be dumb. Except: he's not wrong. CJ is a transcriptionist, a link whore, if you will, for something that has been swept under the rug for way, way too long.

Islam has been given a very free ride for ex-libs and Dems like me, who looked the other way for a long time, pretended to neither see or hear, in the hopes of being inclusive and multi-cultural.

As someone who watched people jump out of a building in NYC 30 months ago--I was walking in as they were falling out--I dont think enough people get pissed, quite frankly.

So people post some stupid things over there, to be certain. Get over it; I certainly have to, when I check out DU, or quite frankly, KOS, now that he's working this "Merc" Jag.

tahnk you for your bandwidth. you have a fine site and should be proud. Ill look for the tipjar on the way out.

Charles, your math is off. I calculated the figures twice and came up with 807. "LGF - the site that fact checks your ummm tush"

Let me state that lgf is one of the 3 or 4 sites I read almost every day, the comments irregularly.

In my opinion Charles is the greatest service to the internet. NOBODY else is willing to strut out the real facts on the prevalence of absolute medeival backward hatred and violence present in many Islamic countries around the world and what is really said in their media - tv and radio. Mosques, schools and right down the line.

So while Jordanians arrested supposedly the murderers of an American diplomat (I haven't read that yet) the Jordanian Parliament has also rejected 5 or 6 times a law banning honor killings by law.. and the people elect most of these guys, while the King was the one who proposed it several times.

Finally, as I read through most of the first 2/3 of this string I once again note how Charles nailed Gabriel. Charles is incredible how he remembers everything and does not allow anyone to get away with their bullshit.

That being said sometimes lgf posters do go over the line... big wup! Comparing it to Indymedia which is overall a majority blatant moonbat hate site, is total moral relevating bullshit.

One example I will give - while I find what Rachel Corrie did and how the PLO is purposely utilizing Western kids to throw into dangerous situations and if one should die, a big +.... and while I am enraged at how ISM and the PLO through an eager Reuters (of course) and general worldwide media lied about the way she died, supplied a false picture and of course blared how Israel "ran her over" while she was protecting "a house".... Well, What else is new? Al-Dura on the PLO essence in my opinion is lying whenever possible I still think it is stupid and makes lgf look bad when jokes about her being pancaked is made....

On the other hand without lgf leading the way the blatant propaganda above which is still accepted and likely believed by some here, would never have been exposed the way it was....

So while I might have a few minor quibbles with lgf it is overall an invaluble site that I check out every day....

And to Charles who thankfully is an extrmeley intelligent and thorogh guy, as well apparently a pretty good guy, I SAY THANKS MAN..

Mike

PS You name any liberal blogger you know and they all likely check out lgf pretty regularly. I can name a few and I bet Charles can name many others that would not readily admit it.
The info is invaluable and squashed in the PC media.

The only criticism of immigrants I've seen are:

1) ILLEGAL immigrants
2) Those who want to do us in, like these guys...

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/100401picts.htm

Scroll down. Ya, there they are at an ATM. Ya, in WALMART! Ya, at your corner gas station.

They are here. They are around us. I'm critical of these guys. Not exactly hate speech, now is it.

This is A.L. I'm pulling posts that suggest - or respond to - the notion of shutting down LGF. As noted, I'm not in the business of shutting down other blogs, and I have no interest in seeing my blog used for that.

If you were responding to the poster who suggested the shutdown, please accept my apologies, but I don't even want the topic raised here.

A.L.

I think that LGF provides a useful outlet in the blog community for exploring the true depths of depravity in the Islamic world, without having to put any fig leaf of political correctness over it. The Islamists consider us to be their enemy, and they wish to destroy us. There is no good use in trying to soft-pedal that message. You cannot figure out how to deal with a situation honestly until you honestly know what the problem is.

Having said that, I heartily disagree that Charles only shows us the depraved side of Islam and the Arab world. I have personally come across many hopeful posts, indicating signs of sanity and moderation in the Arab and Islamic world.

The problem that many posters here seem to have is indicative of a general symptom among modern Americans -- people are no longer comfortable with concepts like "enemy." People tend to believe (or hope?) that if they could only try hard enough to understand why others hate them, then they might be able to talk things out and everything will eventually be okay. Unfortunately, this is a distinctly Western mindset that has no basis in reality.

This is A.L. I'm pulling posts that suggest - or respond to - the notion of shutting down LGF. As noted, I'm not in the business of shutting down other blogs, and I have no interest in seeing my blog used for that.

If you were responding to the poster who suggested the shutdown, please accept my apologies, but I don;t even want the topic raised here.

A.L.

[What Tony abu Tuz said-especially "Do you actually care about the well-being of Arabs? or only about venting your hostility towards America?" and "By the way, LGF has at least 4 arab regulars."]
On LGF, there is peace between Arabs and Jews! Isn't that something?
Or do we Arabs' opinions not count unless we hate America and hate Jews?

Auston wrote:
"Does LGF in any way shape or form say that it is attempting to give a description of all of Islam? "

YES - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT

every time it posts a story about what one person did and then says "Religion of peace does X"

Like recently there was some story about some guy somewhere who didn't like his wife's hair so he scalped her or stabbed her in the head or something. So charles puts up a headline saying something like:

RELIGION OF SCALPING WOMEN!

by the by... the so-called "house" was a cover for a smuggling tunnel where weapons, bombs, guns, hookers and drugs were regularly smuggled....

OF COURSE, this wasn't how it was portrayed in the media.

Hey, Pinheads!

The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world with Sharia law.

So are you looking forward to your new masters?

I read LGF all the time and it is far more accurate and truthful than what I would get at CNN or NBC or CBS. The comments are also worthwhile because they provide additional links and of topic links to other current events that might or might not get a headline on LGF or any other blogs.

Oh, and if you Muslim 'friends' deny it then they are just pulling your leg and you are falling for it... If they meant it they would speak out against the fanatics... But they do not! Instead they collect money for Hamas

What about Islam's intentions towards the America and the West that you folks don't understand is beyond me.
All I hear in all this palavering about the supposed racism on LGF are frightened people who can not face the reality of this age. Charles and those who post there can.
I'm not wasting my time digging through your archives but I wonder if you have ever dissected the rabid hatred for America on Indy sites. Or perhaps their rhetoric is more appealing. I don't really care - racism is such a bogus charge to start with, unless you want to point out exactly which 'race' is Muslim.

CAIR does a fine job defending Islam, perhaps a contribution to them would satisfy your sense of the proper way to deal with terror - a bit more delicate for those who wish to walk to their deaths with blinders on.
Because the bottom line is that any more of this PC applied to dealing with this war will kill us all.
Yes, boys and girls. We are in a war and the enemy is Islam.
There is no racism on LGF.
Period.
Get over it. Those who can't, just go back to sleep.

You serve no purpose in my world, that's for damn sure.

so "LGF is hateful" since you took my bait and answered my post ...where is your denounciation of terrorims and militant islam?

Where is your stance for that woman? or do you just dont care???????

Austin

Ah yes, "we're really not hateful- just the occasional dupe."

Sure. Count the nasty degrading things written in response to *this post*. Not exactly a lone racist being "yelled-down" or better yet, banned. In fact, it's almost like they're competing to see who can make the most light out of murder and rape.

Classy joint you run there, Charles.

This is A.L. I'm pulling posts that suggest - or respond to - the notion of shutting down LGF. As noted, I'm not in the business of shutting down other blogs, and I have no interest in seeing my blog used for that.

If you were responding to the poster who suggested the shutdown, please accept my apologies, but I don;t even want the topic raised here.

A.L.

Ummm LGF is Hateful. . .

Did the individual in question scalp his wife for any other reason? NO. It was because this sort of treatment of women is acceptable in Islam. For many years before the U.S. became involved in Afghanistan, cries went up about the cruelty shown women by the Taliban, an Islamist regime. Not Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu but Islamist.

You may not like it but it is representative of the fate of women under Sharia law.

"Please help Shut down funding for Hate-Site LGF"

Posted by: LGF is hateful on April 7, 2004 04:42 AM

Does facism fit you? Thought so....

"they meant it they would speak out against the fanatics"

I know quite a few Muslims, considering I'm over in Malaysia a lot (ya, some guy in a black Suburban seems to follow me a lot here in the USA [wink]). Most of these Muslims are silent on the issue of Jihad. They don't praise it. They don't condem it. Just silence.

"He also won't ban some of the longest-running trolls (I'll be kind: persistent contrarians) such as Gordon, DU Jimbo and BPP. view from Ireland lasted over two years before he had to ban her for only derailing threads, never contributing anything. That's remarkable tolerance.

I wonder how long the Republican versions of those four would last on Democratic Underground."

DU Jimbo is not a troll. He only trolls over at Democraticunderground where he posts under the name JimSagle. He has managed 3500 posts over at DU without being banned. Pretty good job considering he's only over there to disrupt. Jim is a true Lizardoid. Do not speak ill of him.

jheka

Holy crap this thread is moving.

I too have met Charles personally and know him to be a very gentle, soft-spoken and thoughtful individual.

LGF is, ultimately, a 'linker' site. Charles does not write essays saying "These Islamists are savages." He links to endless scenes of Islamic savagery, from on-site reports and pictures, and says "These Islamists are savages -- and here is WHAT THEY SAY and here are some pictures of WHAT THEY DO." This is not Charles' OPINION. It is journalistic EVIDENCE.

How is this racist, exactly? And just out of curiousity, does the left have any ideas remaining, besides screaming RACIST!

Any?

And as far as some of the more extreme comments go, perhaps you might want to take that up WITH THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THEM.

Just a thought.

A few of the regulars at LGF are garden-variety nativists or racists, but Charles tends to ban them. The real question here is what A.L. has been getting at: what do you think the terrorist threat is, and what is its extent? Your answer to that probably determines your opinion of LGF.

That said, read LGF before you answer that question, and leave your ears open to what you don't want to hear. Then go read the CAIR homepage and do the same. Judge them on their merits and their truths.

Senior Administration Official:

LGF is exposing the brutality and horror of Arab culture and regimes, as shown in the example you link to. That's racist?!?!?! Thank god someone like charles is showing these horrors, unlike people like you who remain silent.

Speaking out against the evils of arab culture is moral. glossing over them is racist.

see also my earlier comments.

Jheka-Oh, oops :-)

Comments areas such as this one and that at LGF are 1) valuable and 2) certain to attract objectionable posts. Melanie Phillips, one of my favorite bloggers (if you haven't read her, you should), wrote this on Feb. 16: "After considerable thought, I have now reluctantly disabled all readers' comments on this site. Despite my having recently restricted them to a seven-day period to make them more manageable, the popularity of this site -- for which I am legally responsible -- means that I simply do not have the time to ensure that nothing creeps onto it that is libellous or otherwise unlawful. I am sorry to deprive readers of this facility, from which I myself have learned much of interest, and I may therefore review this decision in the future." Charles faces the same question and answers it differently. Neither Charles nor Ms. Phillips can be faulted for their respective decisions. The comments area of a popular blog will receive more responses than can be policed, and it's inevitable that some of those comments will be indecent. Holding the blogger culpable is foolish at best. Consider this Winds of Change post. Are the proprietors responsible for the comments that you find unacceptable? Absolutely not. The subject of this post is highly charged, and bound to provoke attentive readers. The same goes for just about everything on LGF. Stop blaming Charles.

LGF is hateful -

What in the heck do you think will happen when Sharia is accepted as apart of the law in Canada (which might happen) or in the US. Are you willing to kiss away the rights of women and babies for the sake of making the world a Caliphistic State ruled by the Sharia. Sure it might be an exaggeration now! But look at what the Taliban did in Afghanistan! They destroyed historical relics without any thought! They forced women into slavery. LGF is pointing out that this is what happens when people are RULED under the Religion of Peace...it is not a religion of peace it is a religion of cruelty and barbarism. What kind of religion promotes the use of kids as suicide bombers? Women as suicide bombers? Of bombing trailway cars and railroad stations? Do you think the terrorists will stop bombing in Spain once Spain pulls out its troops? Or do you think it will continue til Spain completely capitulates into Al-Andulus (sp.). This one article (and there are many) show the path of what will happen when the Sharia is encoded into law. And I must say its interesting that you failed to note that that person (and I use the term loosely) will only get a MAXIMUM SENTENCE of 3 years in Malasyia, do you call that Justice?

Hey Dan; this is moving somewhat slowly by LGF standards. But hey! SAO wants a policing of all comments on all threads to maintain a certain P.C. standard.

BTW SAO, would you be the arbiter of what is good and true? P.C. is slavery. Life is offensive. Nobody has the right to NOT be offended. I don't go out of my way to offend people but I'll be d*mn*d if I'll have somebody tell me what to say as to not would some nitwits delicate sensibilities.

wow.

pass the popcorn.

Senior Administrative Official says: See how long it takes your PC comment to get deleted vs. the a bile-filled comment.

Bullshit. Just plain bullshit.

I tangled with a few of the "worst" LGF denizens (see, e.g. this exchange with "Caton") and lived to tell about it. And not get banned or deleted.

What's frightening about LGF is not that when you challenge them on their (admittedly) hard core outlook that they shout you down. OK, if you're a hardcore idiotarian, sure they will - as will WoC. (Tony Foresta, anyone? Jean Bart?) No, the frightening thing is that they respond with sufficient erudition and historical perspective that you really start re-examining your own convictions.

Charles, face it, LGF is populated with some really self indulgent comment posters. "Haters" isn't really too strong a word.

But in defense of the "worst" of them - Caton, bigel, et al - to claim some sort of moral equivalence ("we're sposed to be the good guys") with the haters on the left or the islamists is just crap. The latter espouse and apologize for terror. The former respond to terror in self defense. They espouse excessive measures and they take a distasteful pleasure in the destruction of enemies - but to equate their feelings with the agrgessive hate our real, declared enemies is completely unfair.

I would like to stand up for Charles Johnson. I am a regular poster at LGF, and I disagree with Charles nearly constantly, and he has NEVER banned me or deleted my post. A lot of what you criticize at LGF is simple "shout at the devil". I for one am glad that Charles is the watch-dragon of the blog'verse.
I love WoC, and read it everyday, ditto Instapundit and Amritas. But I read Charles first.
Gabriel, you would have enjoyed the thread Charles hosted with Micheal Ledeen the other day, where LGFers participated in a discussion of meme transmission and cultural genetics in Islam.
I haven't seen any other blog in the blog'verse with the passion and energy of LGF, and I find myself resentful of your unsubstantiated generalizations. Gratitude, A.L., for letting me speak my piece. A vrai dire, Charles even tolerates my bad french.

I am an avid LGF poster and reader and, while some of the regulars are real troglodytes, Charlie is doing the world of truth a favor. Beleive me I've been panned as an LLL a number of times when I called for some restraint from our side. Nowhere else in the media has anyone been relentless as he in turning over rocks to display the seamier side of Arab and Islam culture to the rest of the world. Between namby pamby political correctism and nihilistic, anti-Jew and America mentality of professional leftist scumbags, Muslims and Arabs seem to get a pass on their barbarism and cruelty by the same puffed up fascist hypocrites who are the first to denounce Israel or Bush for failing to bow correctly. Face it, the Arab/Muslim neanderthal killers have replaced the Black Panthers and the Viet Cong in the intellectual elites pantheon of murderous third world fascists who will bring off the revolution that they are too scared to start. So 1 Charlie is needed to counterbalance a 1000 Zuniga/Chomsky/Queers for Palestine/Cockburn braindead fifth columnists. He has his work cut out for him, and it aint easy!

Evariste, you tell em!

Its understood that there are many varied religious, and ethnic backgrounds from all over the world that read and comment at lgf....

There is a real hatred and virus in the Islamic world and it dominates it and can not be questioned due to the lack of democracy there. The internet is the only option for the true moderates there and in Iran and ironically many of them comment and are linked at places like the Buzz Machine (He has a collection of links to all the foreign blogs), Roger Simon, Charle's lgf which is the main site and others...

When far lefty loons try to portray a site or idea they don't like they need to fit it into their bottle fed propaganda they've read at places like WRH, Indymedia and from ANSWER meetings.... which is its the Western White Imperialist, Walthy, Capitalist, Neo-Con Racists oppressing the Poor, Darker, Left Wing Good guys of the world.

Therefore Charles's site must be a White hate Neo-Nazi site...
Of course anyone with a fing brain in their head knows that Neo-nazis would never set foot at Charle's site... its not a friendly place to tout their top 2 groups for hatred blacks and Jews.... they spend all their time linking up with their friends in the Islamic and Left Wing sites...
And Charles just linked how Quatar and Bahrain recently had their favorite Neo-Nazi speaker in town for a conference on the evil Jew worldwide conspiracy.. Mr. Baker..

NUFF SAID....
Gabriel you got torched by Charles for what you said.... And its amazing to me and probably you as well!! that he actually remembered it....

Mike

Try posting even a mild critiscm of Israel on this Fascist LGF site and you are off, permanent.

No balance whatsoever.

Site reserved for knuckle dragging anti Muslim bigots.

Ed.

LGF is great and Charles Johnson works very hard at publishing information that is overlooked by the mainstream media.

If reports on Al-Qaeda, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other fascist Jihadis make you uncomfortable, that's your problem.

Many in the PC crowd are so afraid of being intolerant that they become tolerant of intolerance (in this case, racist, mass murdering Islamic intolerance).

Charles never posted anything hateful and he's not responsible for anything users post on his site. Here's for example my policy on FactsOfIsrael.com regarding comments:

"Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of FactsOfIsrael.com. See the Terms of Use for more details."

This means that although users can post whatever they want - the comment will probably get deleted if they are calling for the murder of Jews, Muslims or anyone else (most of the hateful comments come from Muslims and European leftists).

As my site grew I found it increasingly difficult to manage all of the comments and eventually I had to write some special code to access the comments table directly in the database.

FactsOfIsrael.com doesn't get a fraction of the traffic that LGF gets - so imagine how much work Charles Johnson has to find and delete hateful comments.

LGF is one of the most valuable sites you can find for seeing what is happening in the Arab/Muslim world as it intersects with our civilization. Many of the posters on LGF are having fun ranting. A few are over the edge, but most are normal people with interesting points of view.

The regular media has been much too lazy. Most news sources insulate people against the dangers of the rapid spread of Wahhabism. Charles Johnson's blog has been invaluable in waking many of us up to the genuine dangers that threaten us.

Some of the people commenting here who don't like LGF are really saying that they don't want to learn about what's going on. Why heap such scorn on a good site? LGF has its own unique characteristics. There are plenty of sites run by people who think that if they say nice things about Muslims, then the problems will all go away. Sorry, folks, they won't. So look straight at the dangers and then form your opinions.

"Gabriel Gonzalez", you say:
There are two main issues at LGF: (i) throwing the red meat (the posts themselves) and (ii) driving the crowd in the back in a particularly (hateful) direction.

This is complete nonsense.

What you call "throwing the red meat" is simply accurate reporting of the constant stream of horrors that Islam is caught up in.

Charles does not "[drive] the crowd in the back" in any particular direction. He does sometimes join in the comments, for example to remark on the inanity of Air America Radio. He does not promote anger - it is the acts of the Islamic extremists that do that.

Now, there are some posters - bigel and Camel Prophet are the same two that I have in mind - that I would personally ban if LGF were my site. But the vast majority of the commenters are reasonable people, and the vast majority of the comments are likewise reasonable.

LGF is no hate site. But emotions run high there because the subject matter is indeed hateful. Charles Johnson does us all a huge service by seeing that these events are not buried and forgotten.

SAO - why would you even want to post a PC comment? What value could a PC comment possibly have in such a discussion? (Or any discussion?)

Try posting an informative comment or an insightful comment rather than a PC one, and I think you will be received much more warmly.

No one I know, including myself, primarily goes to LGF for the comments. It's for the posts. Does Charles make them up? No. Are those stories wrong, do they skew the Arab street's image, are they generalizations to paint a racist picture? Only if the sources that Charles links to are. Does he carefully select sources to shape the discussion on radical Islam? Of course he does. Every news outlet does that.

Charles does have a personal agenda. Period. What amazes me is that quite a few people in here demand that Charles put aside his own agenda and ... and what? Only give double-checked facts about the Arab street? Give no facts about the Arab street anymore, shutdown LGF? Find other facts about the Arab street that paint it in a more favorable shade?

So, there you are, problem solved. Ignore LGF, start your own anti-lgf.com, and post all the wonderful stories about Islam's capabilities for tolerance, the wisdom of the Arab street, the vivid reform process from Cairo to Teheran, Muslims and Jews happily celebrating together.

Oh, I hear them complaining already. "You're putting up your own strawman.", "They need more time to evolve.", "You can't judge the Arab street by your own standards." And that exactly is the point. You do not want Charles to paint a different picture of the Arab street. You want him not to post any news about the Arab street at all. "The Arab street is sick, she needs rest." Case closed, move on, there's nothing to see here.

And that exactly is what we had in the last decades. And I say, no, keep the spotlight on, fully focussed on the target. Let's hear those stories that get filtered by our media. For that is the very reason why people visit LGF. Yes, it may be painful, and sometimes disgusting, and some might call it hate-speech. But we do need that reporting.

Anyone is welcome at LGF, to DISCUSS anything.
Barge in the door calling us Nazis, or with any of the dozens of cut-and-pasted Left Talking Points, and you'll get the treatment your non-thinking idiocy deserves.
Show up with the repeated-ad-nauseum 'I just happened upon your site and in 30 seconds deduced you are wingnuts', and you'll be mocked mercilessly for a trite Idiot.
If you can participate in a give-and-take rational discussion on the topic at hand, or even sustain your own position beyond the first layer of canned response, you'll be given respect.
Use the usual lazy unthinking charges of 'racists!' or 'nazis!' or 'circle-jerk' when pressed to defend your points with logic and real-world factual substantiation, and you will indeed be mocked and derided.
Likewise, come to deliberately spar while answering none of the questions or points made to you, or by refusing to make any declarative points of your own, and again, you’ll be scorned and tossed out.

And for the human waves of Idiots that still don't get it - the LGF community is multi-national, gender balanced, racially mixed, and contains a wide range of political affiliations, including Democrats, former (pre 9/11) Democrats, Independents, and yes Dorothy, Republicans. The thing almost all of them have in common is some strong Jacksonian tendencies, and a strong addiction to factual information.

You'll find us primarily focused on the global threat and activities of Radical Islamic jihadists, the WoT, and everything related to Israel.
If you cannot discuss any of those three withOUT foaming at the mouth and making baseless / grossly inaccurate accusations at us, don't bother coming over.

We ravenously devour information from ALL sources on the Internet, be they bloggers, big and little media.
You'll most often find news stories linked directly from AP or Reuters, though usually with scorn for their atrocious PC / Pro-muslim / anti-Israel bias.
The Guardian, Beeb, ABC, CBS, WaPo, Times are quoted / linked AT LEAST as often as Newsmax or the Wash Times.
Again, if you think ALL of those are anti-Left, don't bother coming over.

Lastly, on the subject of bannings - unlike most of the blogs / forums on the Left, LGF / Charles does NOT ban dissenting viewpoints. The people that get banned are the folks that solely post tripe like “Fucking JEWS! / Nazis! / Racists!”; that come to play self-referential games with multiple mutually-supporting Nics coming from the same IP; that show the comportment, reasoning skills, or manners of a cranky 3-year-old. The last category are those that ONLY ever post personal attacks or non-constructive criticims of the forum, particular members, or the operator.

Leave the Projection behind, and come on over to a place where you really will be challenged - and if you are capable - learn additional information and viewpoints on many topics.

Everybody is welcome, if they can support and defend their viewpoints with historically factual information, and are able to sustain an exchange beyond the opening slogan.

Ed-

Are you speaking from experience? Or are you just making this up as you go along?

Thank God for Charles and LGF! One of the few place in America left were one can speak their mind without having to worry if someone is offended. If you are offended (and I have been on both sides of that at times), you are allowed to confront the offender with logic and facts. The posters on LGF are some of the most intelligent and thoughtful posters I have seen. It is refreshing to find an outlet where one can enjoy such lively exchanges.

Ed.

Pray tell what "mild" criticism did you post that got you banned? Something along the lines of comparing Israel to Nazis? Or their defence against terrorist thugs as naked agression against the poor, oppressed "Palestinians"?

I've seen the kind of Israeli critical remarks that lead to bans. Probably very similar to those of Gabriel Gonzalez.

By the way, "LGF is Hateful" has an e-mail address of "none@hotmail.com"

This is exactly the kind of sniper in the basement courage that so many of the tryly moonbat fringe seems to have devolved into.

Charles Johnson has the courage to post under his own name, and to suffer potential lunatics at his door. That is called having the courage of your convictions, which is more than can be said for craven cowards like LGF IS HATEFUL, who wish to silence other people when he lacks the fundamental courage to sign his name to what he claims to believe.

Miserable. Pathetic. Loser.

(Hey, it's a Rachel Lucas flashback! Just another person with the guts to leave a valid e-mail address)

twisterella,

Aaaarrrgghhh!!! French!!! Stop that.

LGF bothers to tell the truth.

What the others don't want us to see.

I like being informed.

Obviously there are people out there who like being kept in the dark.

Muslim extremism is all over the world now.

Time to stop it.

You can lull yourself into complacency and pretend that radical Islam hasn't declared war on the civilized world, but that won't make the war go away.

Tolerating Intolerance: The Challenge of Fundamentalist Islam in Western Europe

'nuf said.

Charles ,is by far, the most fair person one could read. I notice no one has ever gave ONE EXAMPLE of Charles distorting what Islam or Muslims are. ALL I hear about, is what LGF comments are compared to "Kos actual comments. The LLL has reached new lows for a "debate"!

Muke Necca.
Assasinate Arafish.
Blow me, Saint Pancake.
Sue me, LLL!

I've been looking at LGF for a short while now, and have a few observations:

1. It is remarkable how the core concepts that define the site resonate with my own take on the crisis in the Middle East. I've been listening very, very carefully to what's going on there for many years now, and have spent lots of time in the area. The posts at LGF (not the comments, mind you) exhibit a really nuanced understanding of the cultural dynamics. My understanding of what a sham the Palestinian cause is came from personal experience and is best summarized by the television program Frontline that deals with the second intafada.

2. I consider myself a person that has no patience for dogmatic obedience to the increasingly absurd culture of tolerance. (Note: that is something different than being intolerant.) For example, if you tell me that you are "transgender" and that I should stop referring to you as "he" or "she", I will laugh in your face and rant at you about the perils of negligent parenting. On the other hand, if I see your transgender butt getting kicked by skinheads, I'll step in and save you at the risk of my own hide. Is this getting through? I'm not being very clear, but hopefully you understand something about the detente of my cultural sentivities. I see Charles lining up in somewhere near the same spot on that dial, and that's rare, and it pleases me to have an ally. If you take your rose-colored glasses off, you might even see what is quite brave about Charles' position.

3. The worst thing about LGF is the commentary. Every blog eventually collapses into trolldom. I've seen it happed so many times in so many ways. Keeping meaningful discussion afloat is tough to do. The comments as LGF are generally inane, with notable exceptions. There are many people there who feel the need to confirm their approval of other people's opinions. I suspect it's a symptom of their fear of being original, which is ironic and unfortunate, since it diminishes the unconventional nature of the site's core premises. My personal theory is that Charles, being something of a pragmatist, attracts personalities that value action over reflection, and the result is a lot of back-patting, agreement, amplification, reductionism and a tendency toward pre-game pep-talking.

Have I lost the plot? I'm being quite sincere, even if I'm too tired to articulate this point.

but religion and politics are not the same
*******************************************
Islam does not distinguish between religion
and politics. Much in the same manner that
the Catholic Iquisition did the same.

When the final arbitrator of all Law is God?

There can be no separation of Church and State
they are congruent.

PS 1.3 Billion can so be brainwashed to one
mode of thought, all it takes is enough time
left unopposed.

Hey Armed Liberal

Thanks for letting us have a say here. I appreciate your graciousness.

EA your comment is complete bullshit.
You can criticize Israel and will not be banned unless you say something hate filled.

However, if you bring your bag you better have your shit down because there are many commenters there than know their shit and Charles has openly endorsed an eventual 2 state solution.
The problem is giving a state to the present political atmosphere there and leaders would lead to exponentially more deaths on both sides... and that's the point anyone who wants to read what is actually said on the Pal side realizes.

Mike

My experience is that people who don't use a real e-mail address are ashamed of themselves and their views.

"Oh, but some of them can. We should show political support for them. To engage "the other half", point out how much worse off, materially, states are that do mix religion and politics are."

I'd say that Charles does exactly that. LGF provides as balanced a view of Middle East events and opinions as one is likely to find from a source that produces the volume that Charles produces. This is not to say that there are an equal number of pro and con posts regarding Muslims/Arabs and their cultural structures, because there are not. This is more a product of the material than of the reporter.

LGF frequently runs stories on voices of moderation and modernity in the ME. It also runs considerably more stories on voices of hate, racism, treachery, blatantly false and inflammatory propaganda and calls to violence, many of which emanate from mosques and from political leadership.

Unfortunately, Charles' reporting is a reflection of reality. If it seems unbalanced, it's because the subject matter is unbalanced. Along with everyone else here, I wish this were not the case. But, it seems to be. Ignoring it will solve nothing, nor will criticizing Charles for reporting on it. Turning a blind eye is simply not helpful.

His commentary is largely restricted to his posts, and his participation in the comments section is minimal and usually administrative in nature. He does editorialize, and this will obviously be flavored by his worldview. It would seem that this privilege is part of the point of having a blog to begin with. If the commenters here agree that Charles is no racist, then the criticism lies solely with his management of the comments section. If that's the case, I'd recommend to those who disagree with Charles' largely hands-off style that you simply not enter the comments sections.

"I think that the good thing about our side is that we're willing to accept the humanity of everyone - including our enemies, which is why we grieve, not cheer, at the picture on Nathan's site. When we stop doing that - as Kos did, and as many of Charles' commenters do, we erode our own standing."

I can only respond to this, I'll leave alone any silly DU flameouts.

"we're willing to accept the humanity of everyone - including our enemies, which is why we grieve, not cheer,"

So you were not happy with the rocketing death of the hamas spiritual leader ? You grieved his death? You grive the deaths of suicide bombers ? You grieve for Mohammed Atta too ? etc, etc, etc.

Bunch of you lightweight metrosexual types need to grow a damn nut or two. When a crazed animal storms into my house and attacks me or my family, I kill it. And I am happy to see it dead.

There are the happy nesters and there are those who build the nests. Hunker down if the demands of being this grotesque human being animal repulses you. I heard it takes as much courage to cower as it does to stand and defend yourself. You decide where to place your energies and I will mine.

LGF FOREVER !!!
justdanny

So I see that what we have here on a website I formerly had a great deal of respect for is a free-for-all bashing of Charles Johnson's stellar Little Green Footballs, and most of the comments here seem to be from formerly banned posters from Indymedia and friends of Kos. Well, that they would want to bash LGF is no surprise but that Winds of Change would offer itself as the vehicle for this little hate-fest is surprising; surprising and disappointing.

As long as I'm here let me say this about LGF. It is a forum for the free-wheeling, uninhibited discussion of subjects which are off-limits in other venues as being 'hate speech'; i.e the discussion of Muslim hate speech against the "kufhr" or "kaffir". And I would add that any visit to Indymedia would teach a visitor the true meaning of hate speech and racism.

This has all blown up out of Kos' nasty little posting on his Liberal blog "DailyKos" that he felt nothing about the "mercenaries'" deaths in Fallujah and his sneering remarks about their presence in Iraq. The US military, having cut its forces to the bone to be lean and mean, no longer provides personnel to guard food shipments to their various bases to supply the troops, or for equipment en route. Those things are now guarded (and they must be guarded, they can't be shipped without a guard and be expected to arrive due to robbers and thieves roaming the country), and the job of guarding these various shipments falls to outside companies who are paid to provide competent people trained and willing to go into dangerous territory. A sort of armed "meals on wheels" for the troops. But these are people of courage putting their lives on the line to deliver a service and they deserve respect every bit as much as the troops do.

It was the MANNER of their deaths which drew the world's attention, not that they deserved attention more than the troops. Yes, five troops did die that day but they weren't burned alive, then drawn and quartered and practically crucified and hung from a bridge over the Tigris River. These four people's bodies were treated that way and that's why the world and LGF drew a collective breathe in horror and when that small-minded, over-achiever, Kos, chose to put his sneering spin on the manner of their deaths and then compound the error with a mealy-mouthed spin of an apology in which everything was about him and how he grew up and we should understand him, he quite rightly drew the wrath of the LGF lizardoid minions. They danced and capered all over every weaselly word and so they should have. The dead whom Kos had maligned had no one else to defend them.

But in all that was written about what Kos said, not one word--NOT ONE--mentioned his race, his gender, his colour (if he has one) or any personal detail. It was all about his shallow perspective on the deaths of some noble and brave young people who, though earning a salary to do the job, nevertheless lost their lives in a very grisly manner while doing it--and there will be no medals for them for guarding the chuck wagon, so to speak.

LGFers are proud of telling it like it is and dropping all the politically correct "nice-niceness" but the only ones who get banned are those who go over that line and use ad hominem attacks or make racist comments. If you stick to the issue there'll be no problem but slop over into racism, visciousness or ranting with the caps locked and you'll be cruising for a bruising and get banned.

I'm proud to be an LGFer of long standing and you can look at all my posts under my current nom de plume above or my former incarnation as "Elizabeth" and in none of them will you find swearing or viscious personal attacks. But I can be very pithy and bald on occasion and totally drop the nice-nice attitude in order to make my point. That and a dash of humour is the essence of LGF and I'm proud to be a member of several years' standing. It's also the ethic which makes people want to check in every day for their daily dose of the TRUTH without P.C. frills.

Everyone: read Internet Haganah.

There are many sites more hateful than LGF on the internet that need policing. That is, sites that advocate and organize the murder of individuals based on their race, religion or nationality. Why are people wasting their time here, arguing for censorship at a site that frequently, if not perfectly, encourages discourse at a fairly high level. It is shameful and infuriating.

This is why we need LGF.

I posted this comment on Roger L Simons post about Orianna Fallaci and I am a rabid LGF fan. I dont believe it is racist to call a religion what it is...and Islam until it finds a center is an immoderate mess. Sorry if that offends some of you. LGF provides a service and instead of me being worried about offending muslims let them be worried about offending me. Let Victor Davis Hanson say it...
=======================================
Quite simply, any society in which citizens owe their allegiance to the tribe rather than the nation, do not believe in democracy enough to institute it, shun female intellectual contributions, allow polygamy, insist on patriarchy, institutionalize religious persecution, ignore family planning, expect endemic corruption, tolerate honor killings, see no need to vote, and define knowledge as mastery of the Koran is deeply pathological.
======================================

And my post on Roger L Simons site is to the point that I believe many of you forget. We are at war.

Do you feel like you are in a war? Do you feel fear? Why not? If you are a frog in a pot do you feel the water getting hotter? Comment (0) | Trackback (0)
A comment I left in response to a typically interesting post by Roge L Simon. Does This Lady Have a Bodyguard?
Im not so sure that even the US should escape the wrath of Oriana. We are at war. A group of maniacs came into our country and murdered us with no warning in numbers unthinkable to civilized societies not at war. In our greatest city, those maniacs who slit the throats of innocents ran jets full of fuel, mothers, fathers and innocent children into buildings full of other innocents, murdering 3,000 of us in one 3-hour period.

Do you feel like you are at war right now? No one, not the British nor the Germans nor the Russians managed to kill 3,000 of us in our greatest city and the surrounds. Did I state that plainly enough? Our greatest enemies never managed to kill that many of our citizens at any point in any city much less our greatest. The murderous tyrant and favorite enemy of the left Hitler never managed it, the far grander thug, murderer, and enemy of the right Stalin never managed it, and yet it happened. The people who made it happen might be the worst enemy we have ever faced, I happen to believe them much worse but qualify it since I remain open to argument on that point. Do you feel like we are at war? I feel like I’m sharing a pot with a bunch of other frogs and the water is getting hotter so gradually that soon I will be cooked and that will be that.

So again here we are at war with a group of people that have so far managed to kill more of us than any other mass-murdering thug ever managed, do you feel fear? Exactly how do we fight a war when none of us feels like we are in a war? At what point do we wake up and realize that all of our platitudes of equality of religion and tolerance have been turned against us in a manner that would make any follower of Sun Tzu proud. Why shouldn’t you feel fear hasn’t the enemy already declared his religious desire to kill thousands if not millions more of us? Should we not take him at his word? Do you feel fear? Neither do I, why not? I don’t know why I don’t but I do realize at times late at night that it’s not rational to not feel fear about this war. In the daytime it seems unseemly to display fear, it feels unseemly to write these words. Yet 3,000 of us died. More are promised violent terrible deaths. Do we ignore these threats? This is a very confusing war.

George Bush has my deepest sympathy. At times in my late night sessions of cowardice I wonder if I would not just throw my hands up and quit were I in his position. Constantly attacked and vilified while trying to wake up a nation to a war. However, his hands are not clean. In trying to minimize the economic affects, didn’t he tell us to go back to our regular lives? Did he expect us to remember that we are at war? Is there such a thing as ADD for a nation? What sort of pills does a nation take to remember we are at war? Maybe it would have been better for him to call the entire nation to arms, instead of just calling to the military in that brilliant September 20, 2001 speech, perhaps he should have called on the nation to be prepared to answer the call. I do not know, I am not that clever, all I know is it does not feel like war around my city. But in my heart of hearts I know we are in the most desperate war of our lives, the stake of civilization depends on us fighting it, and yet it doesn’t feel like war.

John Kerry will appease the terrorists and declare victory, just like Clinton did.

Pierre

I reluctantly would like to add to the LGF examination.
LGF to me is a powerful wake up call to the Left and Islam. I've long enjoyed reading LGF and its commenters since the 9/11 terrorist attack. It was very addictive for awhile - I found many of the posters to be quite intelligent and willing to have a discussion. Unfortunately, what started as sharp criticism of Islam and Liberal politics became hate speech and one dimensional thinking. While I agree with Charles's zeal on the injustice given to Israel in world politics- he doesn't show the same enthusiasm for hate against muslims- often posted on LGF, and other minorities, often posted on LGF. Criticism of Bush policies are a no-no on LGF, which doesn't make much for discussion purposes.
Jheka-
You can probably add me to your list of trolls not banned (yet)

It's good to see that Charles encouraged the LGF crowd to show everyone how reasonable and well-balanced they are. And to show us the impressions of Islam and the Middle East they're soaking up from his balanced, well-informed blog.

The overall upshot of this: a whole lot of adolescent breast-beating about "PC," a little name-calling, a few repetitions of urban myths about a certain dead protester, some "Muslims want to conquer the world" conspiracy theory... and to top it all off, Johnson has what looks to me like an outright lie posted on his blog, claiming that he's been called a "Nazi" and "white supremacist" here. But it's okay, the racists over at LGF are just local colour, nobody really pays attention to them. Whew.

Well, I don't think Johnson is a racist. Based on what I've seen here and what I've seen in the past, I just think he's clueless, dishonest, and a liability to serious debate about the Islamic far right that he claims to care about so much. Colour me better-pleased than ever not to be an LGF reader.

I've seen the strongest of comments as LGF as being anti-Islamist, not anti-Muslim. There's a distinction there between the animals who blow up civilians in Israel and the average Muslim working joe. It's just that LGF is focused on the extremists and the danger they pose.

Nobody's saying we should ignore radical Islam, or not judge it.

What I am saying is the comments are disgraceful- bordline fascistic- and the posts present a lop-sided view of Islam.

Believe me, I think demonization has its place (try WWII), but we're not there yet. I could be wrong.

Senior Administration Official

Perhaps you do not understand what the term fascistic means?

Here is a definition from dictionary.com

3 entries found for fascistic.
fas·cist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshst)
n.
often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.

adj.
often Fascist Of, advocating, or practicing fascism.
Fascist Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti.

I do not see this going on at LGF!

SAO,

as stated above - open your own blog to show us that LGF's view of Islam is lop-sided. Don't have time? What a pity.

Now, now Jack Frost

First of all, you are not troll. Definite contrarian and somebody with whom I almost always disagree but no troll.

he doesn't show the same enthusiasm for hate against muslims- often posted on LGF, and other minorities

Care to substantiate that "and other minorities" comment? And since a vast majority of what Charles posts regards the Middle East, how exactly are Muslims a minority?

What good little dhimmis you multicultural liberals are going to make.

Next time a Christian fundamentalist blows up an abortion clinic, I'll be looking forward to your hand-wringing and "root cause" search.

Boy, I have to say that it's pretty interesting to watch WoC painted as a leftist, Kos-loving site.

Among other things.

Robert,

I know from experience.

Take up the challenge. Try a criticism of either Sharon (Rumoured here as going to enter Jerusalem next Passover riding on a donkey, thus proclaiming himself to the world as the Messiah) or Israel's possession of atomic weapons or the tactics of the IDF etc etc and that is your last post. Apologies to any folks out there whose religious sensibilities I've offended.

Sometimes I think that Charles is just a front for the IDF.

Ed.

Wow. Joe, look at the post above this one from E.A. Woodman. Is this what you want your blog used for?

"What I am saying is the comments are disgraceful- bordline fascistic- and the posts present a lop-sided view of Islam."

Posted by: Senior Administration Official on April 7, 2004 05:56 AM

So, are you now saying the first entry was in "error"? We are actually talking about apples and oranges here, SAO. "Kos" comments compared to a blog's various comments? Shall I go retrieve some various comments from some "Kos articles"?

Charles has nothing to apologize for. He is not a racist or a bigot. LGF been voted as the best blog at Wizbang for a reason. It is a good, informative, truth-seeking weblog and vibrant community of intelligent people.

As for policing the comments section, Charles does a good job. He cannot read 3000 comments a day. He controls only the most egregious violators. The rest of policing is done by his readers.

Ed -

ROFL!!! Actually I posted a comment to LGF about Sharon being in a battle to win a confidence vote in the Kennest that I heard from a friend of mine...I never got banned.

OH and as for your "rumor" about Sharon, which I must say is probably the funniest thing I have heard given how old the man is....Do you happen to have a link? Or did you just make up this "rumor?"

As for the Nukes Israel has, it doesn't bother me in the least, it serves as a deterrant to the other 8 or 9 neighbors that have repeatedly invaded Israel over the past 60 years.

It's far past time that we raised the temperature of our rhetoric regards muslim extreemism.
Pussy footing around the issue has only made it worse.
This is not a war on terror.
Terror is no a person, a group, a nation or a movement.
This is a war with Islam, not just the extreemists, but the moderate apologists and faciltators as well.
LGF and Charles are just the leading edge of those of us that have chosen to wise up and see the situation as it really is, a confrontation between modern society and the hateful savagry that is the core of modern Islamic theology.

SAO,as stated above - open your own blog to show us that LGF's view of Islam is lop-sided.

I'm not arguing LGF should be shut down, and it certainly has its counterparts on the left and elsewhere already. The arguement is between me and Armed Liberal about whether a site that links to LGF can morally condemn Marcos Zuniga.

I don't think so.

praktike says "Boy, I have to say that it's pretty interesting to watch WoC painted as a leftist, Kos-loving site."
The people saying that aren't familiar with WoC, obviously, or they wouldn't say that. I wish some people wouldn't shoot their mouths off before they're entirely familiar with the ground they're standing on. That said, a lot of the comments accusing of extreme leftism and such are directed at the lgf detractors in these comments and not at the site itself. I for one love this site (and the comments), and many other lgfers do.

Hey Ed.,

Care to answer my question? What did you say that got you banned? I bet if we asked Charles he could dig it up. Pretty simple task of calling BS on you if you fudge it a bit.

praktike

Here? A couple perhaps. I really don't know too much about Winds of Change so I won't pretend to comment on it. I do have it bookmarked for when I can get around to browsing which is rarely. I have no idea what LGFers are saying since I've spent my commenting time on this thread alone.

Charles,

You can dish it out but can't take it can you? That post was tongue in cheek and quite mild to the bigotry from the crapheads on LGF.

Ed.

I personally have seen Charles' LGF site on several occasions muster enough public feedback and pressure to change the flow of current events. One time, it was a 15-year-old girl in some godforsaken Arab country (I forget exactly which godforsaken country right now) being accused of adultry, and sentenced to being flogged. No one in that Shariah-run country had evidently ever heard the word "rape" in connection with a 15 year old expatriate girl having sex. I know that after Charles publicized this case on Little Green Footballs, the Shariah court changed its collective pea-brain and merely deported the girl, rather than flogging her to death. I doubt very much that Senior Administration Official could have accomplished the same thing.

One of the other most touching and memorable experiences I have ever had either in real life or on the Internet was when Charles spontaneously started a discussion of 9/11 by asking, "Have you lost any friends over the war on terror?" And it turned out that yes, most of the posters on Little Green Footballs believe so passionately in the cause of freedom and democracy and what we are doing that we have all lost or cut off both friends and family.

I strongly urge the nay-sayers here who are focusing in on what may be politically incorrect personal rants of people pushed over the edge of politeness - I urge those people to go back to LGF and look up that very very long thread of many many people discussing why they think this country is important, why they are supporting the war on terror, and telling their own individual personal stories of what happened on that day on that September.

And then come back here and dare to post that the people there are hate-filled.

It's far past time that we raised the temperature of our rhetoric regards muslim extreemism.
Pussy footing around the issue has only made it worse.

Steve, I understand that and we've heard it a million times before. There are other ways to go about "waking people up," though. Why don't you take a look around Joe's site?

Ed.

No WAY! That was hate speech. Just like every single comment over on LGF. No? Didn't think so.

/sarcasm

I just wanted to voice a positive comment in support of Charles and LittleGreenFootballs.

I find the topics and comments from Charles helpful, hopeful and have thanked him on more than one occasion for his site.

I worked for 9 months in and around the Red Zone of Ground Zero and developed a gnawing emotion that I knew was part anger but I could not quite put a name to or try to assuage.

After reading, posting, laughing and crying with some of the posters at LGF since first visiting has helped me to deal with my experiences. I find the Community at LGF to be some of the finest people and friends a person could want. Not to mention well informed (always backing up arguments with facts), intelligent and eloquent.

Thank you Charles and Thank you all at LGF for the Community.

Charles,

You can dish it out but can't take it can you? That post was tongue in cheek and quite mild compared to the bigotry from the crapheads on LGF.

Ed.

I believe that Moslems would prefer to live without fear of getting carted off to go through paper shredders. I believe that most of them are probably a lot like me and, if given the opportunity, would be content to putter through life in their house and garden without blowing the shit out of somebody.

I believe that democracy can work in the Arab countries. I want democracy for all the population, not just the male portion of the population.

I believe the Moslem religious leaders are in a deliberate partnership with the dictators in the region for a combination of money and power. Keep 'em stupid and tell them Allah wants it that way. The partnership precludes real education for the populace because then they might develop independent thought and independent action. Being sent through school and only learning the Koran and jihad is NOT cutting it for living and competing in the modern world (but then again, that is the point, isn't it?) Is it racist to think that Arabs deserve a decent secular education for both sexes, not just the children of the dictators/cronies/"religious" leaders?

I am now in a situation where the religious leaders are calling for me to get killed because I am a Non-Moslem and Westerner, and yet it is somehow racist of me to notice this or read anything about it, but not racist/sexist of them to target me? Is the rationale for this that if it were ignored it would all just go away? As a southern woman, I can overlook/ignore a lot of things out of sheer politeness; i.e. most folks know when they're being incredibly stupid, you don't necessarily have to rub their nose in their mistakes. Overlooking the fact that there are practitioners of a religion, some of whom are in my own country and actively working to kill me right now, is not something that I am willing to overlook.

I take the idea of religious leaders of any religion calling on the faithful to kill me (or somebody just like me) rather seriously and would terminate any attempt with extreme prejudice if I saw them coming first. Oddly enough, seems that it is Moslem mullahs calling for my death. Really. The Buddhists appear to be indifferent to me. The Catholics don't appear to want to end my period of earthly existence. The Amish want me to leave them the hell alone but maybe buy a quilt and some pasture-raised chickens. Knowing what people that want me dead are up to at the moment is pretty important to me.

Since Charles posts some articles (among others) regarding attacks/threats/murders or enslavement of non-Moslems (or different Moslem factions) by Moslem extremists in Spain, France, UK, Netherlands, India, USA, Israel, Australia, Indonesia, the Sudan, Malaysia, Philippines, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Dubai and others, then Charles is the racist? How is he a racist when he exposes the horrid living conditions/nightmarish worlds inhabited by the oppressed Kurds, Syrians, Iranians, various African countries? (Darn, he had some articles about Afghanistani female policepeople. Racist pig.) Exactly what part about showing pictures of the mass graves, some of which resulted from the way the Kurds and Shi'ites were not supported after GWI because of UN sensitivities is racist?

I suppose I must not understand that word racist very well.

Washing your hands of these people and making excuses for them because "it is their culture" and "life under Saddam was better" sounds pretty darn racist to me.

Yes, but that's what LGF IS to me. It's where I go to find out what the true Islamist nutballs are up to in the world. Its focus is not on political correctness or providing a "protected" place for PC discussions with no hurt feelings.

LGF's a great place to see what's in the press in the Arab world, and to keep informed about political happenings there. I have seen some crude comments there, but I usually take them to be in reference to participants in whatever Islamist atrocity is being discussed at the moment ... whether it's an "honor" killing in Jordan or a car bomb in Jerusalem.

Some people will always make stereotypical and racist generalizations based on race or religion. They are a minority.

Most know who the enemy is ... radical Islam, not all Muslims.

The enemy is the funder, the supporter, the advocate and the participant in acts of terror against civilized societies.

He's the Saudi Royal who supports HAMAS, a Toronto shopkeeper who funnels money to Hizbollah, an imam who uses his power to incite murder, and at the lowest level ... the subhuman animals who murder civilians.

That's what you read about at LGF. It's looking at radical Islam without the rose-colored glasses of the national media. And the comments reflect that.

Charles does a good job of controlling nuisance posters, like the idiot trolls who spam the boards occasionally ... but there's no way he could read every post for political correctness, even if he wanted to do so.

As the LGF "House Liberal," (although I'm really not that liberal, certainly not in context of this blog) I can say that Charles does not ban many people. I have posted numerous attacks on the LGF mentality on LGF when I have been saddened/sickened/appalled/nauseated by it. While I have endured serious written abuse from some of the other posters (not being entirely innocent of such tendencies myself), I have also had worthwhile discussions with the majority on the site which opposes my views.

Some of the posters on LGF do put up racist or fascistic bile; but the answer is to call them on it. And Charles allows that without banning people right and left.

LGF has an interesting and valuable perspective on world events, even if I don't agree with the slant Charles puts on it much of the time.

Charles bans people for being left wing

but he encourages and certainly more than tolerates racism, and often genocidal speech

search for 'nuke mecca' on his site - nearly 200 matches

Gordon,

Yes. Too much freedom is far better than not enough. IMHO.

The timing of "LGF is hateful"'s latest post is priceless!
Thanks, Gordon. That gave me a good laugh.

SAO,as stated above - open your own blog to show us that LGF's view of Islam is lop-sided.

I'm not arguing LGF should be shut down, and it certainly has its counterparts on the left and elsewhere already. The arguement is between me and Armed Liberal about whether a site that links to LGF can morally condemn Marcos Zuniga.

I don't think so.

Posted by: Senior Administration Official on April 7, 2004 06:08 AM

So, no one can have an opinion now in your facist-land(except the LLL of course)? Welcome to the Socialist Party Of the United States of Facism....

Idiotmedia Alert!

LGF is hateful,

You've never heard of hyperbole? Anger? LGF is a great place to vent when homocide bombers do their thing. At least we just type nuke Mecca. They are actually trying to kill us. Which is worse?

And isn't your nick a little case of Pot Kettle Black?

"Nuke Mecca": 200 matches.

Total # of comments at LGF as of this writing: 648,157

Percentage of comments containing "nuke Mecca": 0.0003 %.

Gordon,

I am quite sure that Attila the Hun would be regarded as a trendy left wing liberal on LGF and be hounded off the site.

Ed.

E.A. Woodman,

I thought Charles took it pretty well tonight, considering the bile he had to put up with.

And at least 4/5ths of those posts are people complaining about Nuke Mecca posts. By the way, you can now get 6 hits for Nuke Mecca-on this thread alone! And no one's calling for Mecca to be nuked here.
Instructive.

I guess we now know why LFG is hateful has been banned..or at least cowering and hiding like a troll or coward or

This thread is undergoing serious devolution, I think anyone should be able to see what Charles is about, just by reading the LGF prayer.
A.L., you can borrow my pony anytime! :-) Gratitude to you and Joe for allowing this discussion.

Would that so many would take such offense at Palestinian or Arab bigotry.

Lets see, Individual posts news and pictures about atrocities against human life, allows heated commentary denouncing and otherwise condemning the behavior and the people who commit it, sometimes overly expansively.

And you choose to take offense at the people typing, instead of the people blowing themselves up.

I suggest you seek counseling.

First!

(Sorry, wrong blog)

FWIW, several people have made the claim that Charles doesn't show the sunny side of Islam and its cultural accomplishments. Or something like that.

Well, exactly what would that be? What sunny-side news from the Islamic world are you looking for?

I think some of the news that gets posted is ugly. Some of the poster have very ugly thoughts, and were I 3000 Charles Johnsons, I would find the time and methods to ban them and delete the posts. There are a few persistent bigot who aren't banned yet. But what do you want - a simon-pure blog that has nothing offensive? What would that accomplish? And how would that be done?

Give the level of comments at DU, I think LGF is a huge success. It - in the main - stays on track. There are persistent trolls who seek to derail threads with pointless comments or well-known irrelevancies, but for the most part, they are ignored by the regulars.

And for the persistent, we roll out Mr. Holland's Opus. What more could you want?

"Percentage of comments containing "nuke Mecca": 0.0003 %."

Posted by: Charles Johnson on April 7, 2004 06:21 AM

OH SHIT! The friggin world is going to end now with all of this hate at LGF!

Next....

Twisterella,

"This thread is undergoing serious devolution ... you can borrow my pony anytime!"

Hummm... Self-fulfilling prophecy?

Saying things that in spirit amount to "kill all subhuman arabs" is not "blowing off steam"

How would the average LGF reader react if there was a website that was the flipside of LGF and did nothing but demonize Jews all day long, and threaten to nuke Tel Aviv based on what one person did in a news story ?

If LGF had a thread talking about such a site, the LGF people would go apesh!t and call the Internet Haganah on them and try to get their website shut down, and attack them in any way possible, like you have done to Daily Kos for much less.

And rightly so!

So look in the mirror, LGF people

maybe not every LGF poster is racist or hate-filled but bile-filled hateful rants and demonization is such a central feature
of LGF that it taints the entire thing.

In your zeal to paint LGF with a broad and partisan brush, under the specious pretext of defending Islam, you folks don't pause for a moment to consider that Muslims suffer first and most under the intolerant, xenophobic, mysoginistic, anti-Semitic, and homophobic faith of Islam. It is the one Abrahamic faith (and I'm an atheist, so I'm not picking favorites) in which literal adherence to scripture is the norm. Picture Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell running the U.S.A. In Islamic states, women are systematically abused and stripped of all dignity, Jews have been expelled or murdered, homosexuals are beheaded, Western society is demonized in textbooks, news is state-run, and apostasy from Islam is punishable by death. This is all in the Qur'an, and the saddest thing is that if a Muslim dares to speak or act against these precepts, he doesn't stand a chance. These people deserve better.

Don't you people check out any Iranian student sites? Or the voices of people who have escaped the tyranny of Islamic states? This is not a matter of being P.C. or loyal to ones particular partisan ideology, it's a matter of the brutal supression of human rights in the name of God.

I'm not registered with any party. I've voted Democrat, Green, and Republican in my lifetime, so this isn't a partisan issue for me. It's a plain issue of loving freedom, and longing for freedom for all of my human brethren. It seems that many people here are ready to sign up for dhimmitude in the name of not being offensive. Guess what? Islam is offensive. It offended itself all the way out of the Arabian peninsula, across the middle east and northern Africa, and made inroads into Europe through ruthless force of arms and rapine. It's the most political religion there is, and it's never been reformed. Charles makes sense, while hard-left and hard-right sites harangue with emotional, insubstantial screeds towing the party line. Dhimmis—that's what your children will become if you continue to appease Islamofascism.

The great contribution that Charles and LGF make to this war on terror is that Charles doesn't shy away from the reality that Islam proper is inherently brutal and largely at fault for making the Arab and Pakistani world et al behave in such a brutal fashion.

To ignore the common denominator from Bali to Casablanca is to be a damned fool.......and Islam (not a improper interpretation) but Islam itself motivates people to great evil!

If any of you have actually studied the 1400 year resume of sheer terror inspired by Islam, you wouldn't be surprised by the many people that post on LGF who are correctly disparaging of Islam.

In addition to that, the greatest exposer of Islam is its own bloody damned teachings....whether in the Quran, Sahih Burkari or Life of Muhammed and other writings that form the Sunnah of Islam.

Muhammed was a man that brutally murdered 800 innocent Jews, bedded a nine year old girl when he was 53, incredibly taught the murder of anyone that leaves Islam, teaches the beating of unsubmissive wives and on and on it goes in the Quran and Sahih Hadiths.

Islam is evil.......pure and simple.......however, and this is where some of the posters get it wrong at times, not every muslim adheres to Orthodox Islam........Muslims are not a monolith........many Muslims are indeed moderate or liberal or secular or non practicing........BUT, the closer one tries to follow Islam literally and exegetically honestly, the greater for evil will one find him/her supporting.

The knowledge of Islam by some of the dimwitted dhimmis is appalling.......Islam will eat you up....they will gladly use idiotic ignorant westerners and our freedoms to strangle us with Islam later down the road........this is Fact....

Please speak to Ex Muslims the world over and there growing legions to find out what Islam is truly all about........Western Muslims will always give you a whitewashed version of Islam....the True Islam is the one spouted by Al Hazar or from the Imams of the Grand Mousque in Mecca etc etc......and there messages are pure Hitlerian.

Please visit the brave ex muslims of
www.faithfreedom.org

Islam needs to join the dustbin of history along with its cousins Nazism and Marxism.....very little difference....except that Islam is more patient and subtle.

Thanks

BY THE John "Effin" Kerry WAY; (Radical) Islam/Muslims have KILLED more people than LGF. Who/what is the hate site?

How would the average LGF reader react if there was a website that was the flipside of LGF and did nothing but demonize Jews all day long...

There is. It's called the "mainstream Arab press".

I'll echo the other LGF'ers coming here to defend Charles and his blog, but in addition to that I think that it's also necessary to defend the comments section on LGF.

The comments at LGF have gotten a bad reputation because leftists have deliberately attempted to shut them down, either through sneaky attacks of "hate" posts, plain nasty insults, or just endless repetition. The regulars at LGF, of which I try to keep up with, are people of the highest moral character and judgment, who post knowledgable links and engage in well thought-out discussion and hence are an invaluable service to the blog.

It can be intimidating to read a 350+ comment thread, and one can assume based on rumor that such a thread would have a series of nasty posts in it. That is simply not the case, and instead it typically involves either the well-thought out fisking of a leftist parroting obsolete arguments, or a major discussion on an important news event.

There are certain people who don't like the truth that LGF exposes, because of their own political agendas, and hence will do anything it takes to smear LGF and the thousands of people who read and comment on it every day. But LGF is not like Democratic Underground, or even like Daily Kos (requiring registration). It's a free exchange of ideas and Charles bans only the most vicious liars, trolls, and hate-filled people. He has AMAZING tolerance.

If you don't believe that the Global War on Terror is really a war, then LGF is a thorn in your eye and must be destroyed. But everyone should realize that Charles is perhaps the CONSCIENCE OF THE BLOGOSPHERE, because many other blogs are too tired to deal with these issues daily, or too afraid to bring up the potential consequences.

Charles should be commended for doing what he does, and the regulars on LGF should be proud of the discussion they have.

Wow...feel like I am watching a hockey game.

Likely, I am the Julie Manyata that Charles mentioned above. I'm a native-born American, but my father is Kenyan.

Back in 1998, a whole lot of people who, at one time, looked a lot like me ended up looking a lot like those four Blackwater security guards in Fallujah.

A lot of people who look like me and even more who don't, ended up the same way in NY, DC and PA in 2001.

And a whole hell of a lot of people who look like me are dying in Sudan because they refuse to convert to Islam.

So you will excuse me if I don't get in a tizzy about a few knuckle-head posters on Charles' site. You will excuse me if I applaud Charles in his attempts to expose those who would like nothing better than to barbecue and filet a few more infidel bodies for show.

Saying things that in spirit amount to "kill all subhuman arabs" is not "blowing off steam"

***I am only for killing the RADICAL Muslims, not arabs. Muslims come in all races and ethnic backgrounds.***

How would the average LGF reader react if there was a website that was the flipside of LGF and did nothing but demonize Jews all day long, and threaten to nuke Tel Aviv based on what one person did in a news story ?

***Isn't that Al-Jezeera? Well, come to think of it,....any Arab media would have that (or worse) in a daily newspaper.***

If LGF had a thread talking about such a site, the LGF people would go apesh!t and call the Internet Haganah on them and try to get their website shut down, and attack them in any way possible, like you have done to Daily Kos for much less.

***HUH?! I haven't seen much mention of Internet Haganah on LGF, but I do visit them also...***

And rightly so!

So look in the mirror, LGF people

maybe not every LGF poster is racist or hate-filled but bile-filled hateful rants and demonization is such a central feature
of LGF that it taints the entire thing.

***Ever visit Dumb-ass Underground? Daily Kos? Read some of THOSE comments!***

Posted by: LGF is hateful on April 7, 2004 06:28 AM

Charles Johnson

So why do you delete left-wing posts and ban them, but you leave up the most vile racist filth? Clearly you watch your site incredible closely, all day long, and the fact that you choose to leave it up implies your approval.

Maybe you want to attract the type of people who search on google for 'raghead' or something along those lines?

And so what if only a small percent of actual comments contain the words "nuke mecca" ?

A more revealing statistic would be what percentage of threads on LGF contain hate speech, racial epithets or calls to violence

And anyone that's ever read the site knows damn well it would not be 0.0003 %

"There is. It's called the "mainstream Arab press"."

And it is much larger, influential and state sponsored.

And so what if only a small percent of actual comments contain the words "nuke mecca" ?

Posted by: LGF is hateful on April 7, 2004 06:38 AM

The mark of a.... LOSER!

To a leftist, the mere posting of a conservative opinion is "hate speech."

"LGF is hateful" apparrently has appointed himself high commissioner of What People Are Allowed To Say.

What's the matter? Can't stand the argument?

If it were mere "hate speech" that this person is concerned with, he'd attack legitimite targets like Democratic Underground, which often calls for the violent deaths of people like John Ashcroft, George Bush, and nearly everyone else in Bush's cabinet.

LGF posts on important news events, even if one-sided, is not hate speech.

But to the self-appointed policemen of the internet, such distinctions are too fine to make when you've got to control the political opinions of the masses.

The only people that I've seen banned at LGF were folks that constantly did things like supplied links to gay porn sites or spouted things like: Kill the (choose group of your choice) a. Jews. b. Blacks. c. Gays. d. Whites. e. Christians. f. Americans. g. Other group of your choice, and all in very pejorative language.

Banned because you had a mild dissenting comment? Nah, probably because it was more something like f**k yu nazi jew motherf****** and yur family and dog i hope yu dye. It's when those posts are coming from alleged "universities" of "higher education" that we get really sad because apparently being literate is no longer a criteria for attending college. Of course, somebody's 6-year-old child MAY be playing with the computer, but I wouldn't bet on it. Of course, posting the same dumbass comment about 25 times is also grounds for being banned.

Charles does NOT ban commenters for left wing views. If you feel that he does, I'd recommend going to LGF and engaging in honest, civil debate.

If and when you're banned, come back here and tell us all what views you were banned for. If you're vulgar, attempting to derail a thread with arguments you refuse to substantiate, or posting with numerous nics, you probably will get banned, and that can be explained and exposed here.

If you behave reasonably, you run the risk of having your convictions shaken, but not of being banned.

I'm sorry if I missed something, but did Ed quote exactly what he said that got him banned? Did Ed say under what name he posted at LGF?

If he could supply either, we could look it up.

I support Charles 100%. Even donated a little money to his blog.

I comment from time to time over there, and don't consider myself to be a racist, fascist or white supremacist. Don't consider guys like Michael Ledeen, James Lileks, or Glenn Reynolds to be racists either -- though all three and many other famous names post on LGF. I don't have to spell out the bona fides of a guy like Michael Ledeen, do I? If Michael Ledeen doesn't have a problem with LGF, why do you people?

Not only has LGF broken new ground in the blogosphere in terms of shining light on the seamy underbelly of the Arab world and radical Islam, it's also served as an incubator for talent. People like E.Nough, Glen Wishard, and Iowahawk are among the most talented bloggers and blog commenters out there, and all three used LGF as a launching pad.

Seems like this "LGF is racist" debate flares up about once a year; the Anil Dash affair of a year and a half ago comes to mind. He ultimately lost that debate. So will you.

Folks, if you go upthread, you'll see that I've edited out a series of comments centering on the notion that LGF should be shut down or sanctioned because it promotes 'hate speech'.

Sorry, not on this pitch; that's not a topic of discussion I'm interested in having on one of my posts. Regardless of my bias toward (or against) any blogger, I'm not in the business of shutting people down.

If any of you post on this again, I may elect to ban you.

For all the visitors from LGF, I'm glad you're here and hope you stick around. Our place is somewhat different from Charles'; think biker bar and college bull session. Each of us (there are a bunch of authors here) control the comments on our threads, and I tend to be fairly ruthless in criticizing and at some point banning people who don't want to make arguments, but want to have them instead.

There's no political or religious position you can take here that will get you shut out, if you're willing to engage fellow commenters in real debate.

There's no political or religious position you can take here that will save you if you just yell at the top of your lungs.

I'll keep this as an open thread and be a lot more 'liberal' about it here, with the caveat that I'll ask folks, as above, to get away from the 'shut him down/ sanction him' notion - you're more than welcome to suggest that on your own blog - and I'll ask you to keep it clean; this is a PG-13 rated blog.

A.L.

It's interesting that people here, for the most part, who object to the "Muslim bashing" on LGF don't seem to feel offended at the biased "F" 'em of other nations such as those in Europe.

LGF offers an extremely valuable service and I read it regularly. However, I stopped posting there long ago because of the bigotry against anything this is not red-white-and blue in the American sense. No one else has any value for Charles and the crew except Americans. And if one dares to point out to the "nuke Mecca" crowd that perhaps Israel is not always playing "kosher" well, that will get you swarmed by a bunch of hate hurling Israel/Jewish fans. Israel can do no wrong on LGF. And that, to me is wrong.

As for the administration and its doings. Those truths never get posted as "news" on the LGF site.

I have noticed that reasonable people tend to come and leave—fast. The extremists and "nuke Mecca" folks stay.

"Religion of hate, religion of wife-scalping, religion of ignorance."

Well, that is what Ali Sina and many former Muslims or Muslim apostates call Islam, SAO: "Today Islam is a danger to human civilization far greater than Nazism was in its time. . .

". . . We simply do not believe that reforming Islam is possible. And of course we do not see any point to preserve the name of Islam and the belief in a mass murderer, pedophile, rapist, plunderer, and assassin prophet. Christ could be a mythological personage but he is a saintly personage.  There is nothing saintly about Muhammad. If anyone behaves like Muhammad today, he would have to expend the rest of his life in Jail.  What is the point believing in a pervert man when you do not want to follow him? It is like trying to reform Nazism and make it a doctrine of love. What is the point? . . . "

 http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/brigit.htm

Kori you need to educate yourself about Islam before making so many PC comments regarding same. It's NOT the same as "diverse" Protestantism. Islam is a political, social, cultural and so-called religious system covering all the bases in life.

Islam is politics and religion all rolled into one and according to the Qur'an, and cannot be separated nor can Islam be secularized. Islam is mandated to rule the world and that is what makes it more dangerous than the Nazis (as Sina says) because Muslims are virtually everywhere with the same "war manual" in hand— the Qur'an.

"Appeal to their common sense. Economic leverage helps here. We've got a lot of good things to share with them here -- freedom of religion/speech, capitalism -- if we stopped thinking of the masses as the enemy, we might be able to engage them productively, constructively."

Kori, the masses think of us (the "unbelievers") as the enemy. Please, read the Qur'an and some books and websites on Islam before trying this PC stuff. It won't work. They hate us, they want to "revert" us, subjugate us or kill us. Living in peace is not what Islam is all about.

OTOH—On any number of liberal sites IF one should dare to tell the unvarnished truth about Muslims and Islam, even if one uses quotes from the Qur'an and the hadith as well as quotes from Ali Sina's site "Faith & Freedom International" or newspaper articles in their very own words—well, that will get one attacked with four letter expletive-deletives from all directions and or banned.

One gets the feeling that some people, on either side of the aisle, would kill for peace.

For REAL hate you should go to Islamic sites. Those don't get shut down, why should LGF? Someone has to tell the truth about the Islamic agenda.

Lili

Paul McKay

Apparently that's too much to ask. See my question directed at Ed. above. He sticks to his guns yet avoids answering.

While I disagree with you SAO, thank you for engaging. Kori, sames goes for you.

for the record, wandering from the comment sections on yahoo, I don't think you really have a justification to critique each other in that way. For that matter I don't think the attack on Kos was all that warranted, although I am not aware really of how influence comes in blogs. If the owner of a blog [who carries a president's ad banner] comes out and advocates defiling corpses of innocent men, does it carry more weight than an anonymous commenter?

Honestly LGF was a breath of fresh air. Realwest, Rayra, Evariste, Engineer, zulubaby, etc. seem like completely rational conversationable people to me. I find their perspectives valuable because I am immersed in a place where the popular instinct is to shun the questioning that they advocate, to own an Al Franken suppository[book] without really ever cracking the pages.

Charles, since I've been there, seems to participate little in the comments section of his own blog, and that may be indicative of the level of sweeping he has to do. That it makes it hard for him to control the direction of the conversation through his own participation. All he can do is present the usual extremely controversial item in a post and hope noone goes ballistic in the comments section, while he's out buying groceries.

Without LGF, I would have no idea of what was happening in Iran a month ago [the voting fiasco]. That is an example of Charles posting something that portrays parts of the middle east[the protestors, not the guardian council] in a positive light. Healing-Iraq, Zeyad, those blogs, I found them through LGF.

The invasion of Iraq and the quick fall of baghdad and the way it was covered, exposed the subordinate relationship between arab media and the arab state, which is as Charles points out, creeping into Reuters and BBC. I begin to wonder when supposedly unbiased reporting can't bear to call an Islamic terrorist a terrorist, and instead calls them an Arab militant. That's an affront to arab militants. I think questioning the liberally dominated media in the way that charles advocates is a good thing.

FWIW, some people on there lately seem to have gone off the deep end, ranting like 'prophets' [hint] that the west is doomed to fall to the Islamists because we are too PC. Although there are things that point to that, I'm not convinced that's going to happen. Americans at least aren't conditioned to respond easily to radicals. If iraqis were we'd have 23,000,000 sadr followers against us instead of a couple thousand. Are left-blogs free of radicals? Can you point me to some blogs that are free of radical voices?

Proud Albertan,

These people are traumatised. Take the Iraqis for example. Downtrodden by the Turks. Then after WW1 downtrodden by the Brits who occupied the country for 41 years, during which time they and the Americans stole their oil. downtrodden by Saddam. Now they are occupied by an American coalition who are just there again for the oil. What do you expect from them? Roses?

How about Nth Africa? The French, the Spanish, the Italians and the British have lorded it over these people for decades. Shot them, raped them, bombed them and used poison gas on them.

Then to top it off, Zionists with the help of the United States are esconsed in Palestine. Just remember that these the predominantly Ashkenazi
Jews from Russia (Marxists), not a drop of Abraham's blood in any of them. Try being a Hebrew in Israel. You will be treated like a dog.
If it wasn't for the injection of American taxpayers' money (over a trillion dollars to date), Israel would have been a failed state decades ago

You wonder why they hate the West? Just digest the above for a while.

Ed.

"advocates defiling corpses"

see there you go doing your LGF thing, that's not even close to anything he said

Consider this. If there is a drive to shut down Charles Johnson's site LittleGreenFootballs, you need to remember one thing. That sword swings both ways.
I've just read all of the comments. Some are clear and brave, some are patronizing and some are just down right silly. But that's what freedom of speech is all about. A little rememberance might help you go a long way. If you should find yourself living under shar'ia law you will not be enjoying the openess and direct exchange of ideas and opinions you are involved in right now.
My last comment is this. If you are afraid to face the truth. If you are afraid of the reality that is not comfortable, safe, copacetic and urbane then don't come to LGF and read the news/information contained thereof.

Really? I'm anyone. I've read the site. And I know no such thing.

And you know why I know no such thing? It's because you are making all this shit up as you go along, that's why.

Where, exactly, is Palestine again?

"LGF is hateful"

Your post is a perfect example of the LLL ranting, mantra, rhetoric that is devoid of any real, profound quintessence. You make exaggerated claims of hate speech with the minimal evidence to corroborate such claims. Simply saying that LGF is hateful "because I said so" is a weak condemnation, you better have some compelling examples otherwise most will dismiss you out of hand.

Excuse me, but how the hell do you know who I ban and who I delete, and who I don't? Have you been seen my ban file?

This is one of the most disingenuous accusations that people make against me.

I don't keep track of each and every banned poster or deleted post, so I can't assure you that the number on each side is exactly the same, but your accusation is totally false. I have banned a number of people for expressing hateful opinions -- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.

Completely disingenuous. My first (and last) experience contributing to LGF consisted of my responding to a typical string of vitriol regarding the Palestinians. Nothing racist or vengeful or expressing hatred...just pointing out the hypocrisy of the messages being posted. The result? Not only was my message removed, by my IP address was blacklisted, preventing me from posting any follow-up message. Is that your idea of freedom of speech, Charles?

You're an asshole, Charles. Cut the mullet and get a life.

Note -- that last reply of mine was to "LGF Is Hateful".

I think that many LGFers have sufficiently defended Charles and LGF here, but I would like to add one summarizing comment. It seems that the fundamental divergence between WoC and LGF is that the people on WoC feel there is a moral equivalence between Islam and the West, and that Islam is merely "just another religion." In harsher terms, WoCers are moral relativists who believe that the West's conception of good and evil is no more valid than that of any other culture. LGFers, on the other hand, feel as if they have been slapped awake by 9/11, and many have come to a shocking realization -- after grokking mountains of evidence -- that Islam is NOT the equivalent of Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism or any other religion. There is no moral equivalence. Islam is not the benign happyland philosophy that WoCers wish it was. Islam is, at its core, extremely ill-intentioned and not good for humanity. "Moderate Muslims" are only moderate to the extent that they reject true Islam. A "moderate Muslim" is merely a backsliding jack-Muslim (to use Mormon terminology). LGFers have arrived at these conclusions not through ignorance or hate, but through investigation and perceptiveness. And it is the belief of most of us at LGF that the rest of the world -- presented with sufficient evidence -- would wake up to these facts as well. Which is the reason why Charles posts an unrelenting and irrefutable barrage of information supporting the accurate notion that Islam is the greatest danger to the world today. He is trying (and succeeding) to educate naive and complacent people.
Final comment: WoCers might be surprised to learn that (by my estimate) at least 50% of the posters at LGF are "former liberals" (or even current liberals) whose loathing of Islam is a natural outgrowth of their progressive ideals. Just like hatred of Nazism was a natural outgrowth of progresive ideals in the '30s.
Try reading LGF with an open mind. Ignore the extremists and trolls you don't like. You might learn something.
I can only hope.

E.A. Woodman..........your post plays perfectly into the Islamic mindset..........I simply cannot respond to such lunacy.....I would be wasting my time.

Thanks

"Sellam Ismail"

One, your e-mail address shows up as 'nobody@littlegreenfootballs.com' -- an obvious forgery.

Two -- name the thread this allegedly happened in. I've never seen you on LGF, and I go there regularly.

littlegreenaddict -

You don't know how wrong you are when you say 'the people on WoC feel there is a moral equivalence between Islam and the West, and that Islam is merely "just another religion." In harsher terms, WoCers are moral relativists who believe that the West's conception of good and evil is no more valid than that of any other culture.' Can I invite you read around and revisit that idea?

A.L.

Ed Woodman is an antisemite and is not contributing to the conversation.
Just to debunk one of his viler points, Ashkenazi Jews are genetically quite similar to other Jews, and different from Russians and Europeans.
But don't let facts and science bother you, Ed.

Several times, especially when I first started reading LGF on a regular basis, I was put off by some of the comments there. One day, I complained to Charles, and he rightfully explained to me (in an eloquent email that took time out of his busy day) that he couldn't adaquately police the huge volume of traffic he gets - and more importantly, many of those people have a very good reason to overreact.

This hit me where I live, because for that one morning I'd lost sight of what's most important for me... protecting my family, my home, and my country. That one morning, I actually heard myself saying something stupid like, "Why do they hate us?"

The islamofascists hate us because we believe in freedom, and we dare to flaunt that freedom in the face of their backward beliefs. And their extremist, fascist, hate-filled leaders inspire them to kill us and our families for daring to violate the tenents of their barbaric culture.

Some of us have every reason to hate them in return.

That we resist at all the impulse to hate like them and instead focus our rage only on our enemies (while continuing to show compassion to the innocent) is a testament to the inherent goodness of our Western cultures, religions, and ideals.

Never forget. And piss on anyone who tells me to calm down. Click on that link up there and look into that man's eyes and tell me that I have no right to hate the bastards that killed him.

No, I shouldn't hate. But when I calm down and choose not to hate, it's on my terms, not yours.

I was banned, and my IP blocked as well by Charles for simply and civilly speaking my mind - trying to represent non hate-filled Jewish left wing people

I was never rude or abusive, though I was often cursed at and insulted by the LGF people, simply for expressing carefully written and often well documented information

Eventually they presumed that I must not really be Jewish after all and that I must be one of the Arabs that they are so obsessed with.

I am incredibly grateful for LGF. LGF is doing a great service to you all, including its critics, the liberal left and the indifferent.
As a previous poster said, we are in a war. It doesn't feel like one, but this is just because you all trust the US armed forces which defend our freedom in those badlands. An enemy is someone who is willing to get killed in order to kill us. 3000 of us, or more. Who is this enemy ? And why does he want to kill us ? Why is he our enemy ? The great service LGF is doing us is to show us who the enemy really is. Not how we define him, by trying to include his motivations in our western intellectual framework. But who the enemy really is, what his fantastic ideology is and what it is capable to do. Look at those armies of black clad robots marching and chanting for death. LGF is giving us a magnifying glass into our enemy's evilness. Thank you Charles !

I think what I object to at LGF, based on the comments I've seen here (and my past experience at the site), is that the people there overwhelmingly hate others, rather than phenomena. You can see it in this comments section -- thoughtfulness was hijacked in favor of hating anti-LGFers. SAO hates the racism and fascism he sees at LGF far more than he hates LGFers, I believe (based on his/her comments), but it doesn't appear such a balanced approach is reciprocated. It seems quite a few LGFers take it personally.

This is a shame. I don't believe it can lead to constructive political dialogue; rather, it debases it. Hating each other will never get us anywhere, except maybe to our own hell on Earth.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I am one who believes the most efficacious way to combat and pass victory over an enemy is know him. Hate will only cloud your judgment and if too strong, render you useless, or useful to someone with malevolent intentions.

Odd...I just linked to LGF through WOC and was not allowed to comment...anyone know why that might be? Honestly, although I was prepared to defend WOC, Joe and AL, I had positive things to say about the information offered on the site.

I'm going to briefly wade in to the very shallow end of this discussion (for now) to say that (as anybody who has seen me post knows) the shmuck posting as "Jheka" above is not me (Admin can compare IP addresses). This same anti-Israel shmuck has done the exact same thing on Charles' site, Allahpundit's site and, recently, Kathryn Cramer's blog (and likely other places) posting hateful comments as a number of different pro-Israel DUers and former DUers. He is one of the people who inhabits or used to inhabit the Israel/Palestine forum of DU and is now in the People for Change site that is inhabitted by the fringe elements of DU (and that's saying something). He trolls LGF and stalks certain posters from site to site. On Allah's blog, recently he was using an AOL account. He was using an MSN as recently as yesterday (so Kathryn Cramer informed me in an e-mail thanking me for giving her a heads-up). He has, in the past, posted as me, DU Jimbo, DRDon326, Herschel and other current and former DUers that he is seeking to smear.

He has been doing this schtick for months (and is now trying to get Jim Sagle banned from DU using my name ... subtle.

during which time they and the Americans stole their oil.

Since when is paying to discover it, paying to drill for it and paying for the oil itself theft?

How about Nth Africa?

Yes let's. Home of those responsible for the Locherbie bomber. Home of those responsible for the bombings in Spain. Home of Sudan, responsible for the murder of 2 million Christians and animists (unless one considers it to be central Africa.

Then to top it off, Zionists with the help of the United States are esconsed in Palestine. Just remember that these the predominantly Ashkenazi Jews from Russia (Marxists), not a drop of Abraham's blood in any of them. Try being a Hebrew in Israel. You will be treated like a dog.

Ahhh good for you Ed, finding the racist elements there. Care to provide some links or proof. I have some educational material you may find enlightening. Try going here and here and here and here and here and here and finally here for a few clues on why you might have been banned. You refused to let the facts stand in your way of accusing the Jews of being land grabbing, tyranical invaders.

TC-you should be able to comment unless you've previously been banned, which it doesn't sound like it. I'll ask Charles on your behalf, hopefully he'll see it and respond.

TC -

I just posted on LGF and had no probs at all.

Reading through these posts, and I am wondering if the issue is hate speech or that the general political slant of LGF is to right of many of the "loudest" complainers - particularly when it comes to the War on Terror.

E.A. Woodward - posters don't get banned on LGF for arriving and announcing something derogatory about Israel or Sharon. Posters might get called on it - asked to produce some facts / links / details to substantiate their viewpoint as fact or opinion. The only ones who get banned are the ones who go way over the top in invective.

Despite the name calling, people on LGF aren't knuckle draggers or rednecks - they are as educated and as traveled as any group of people representing a large number of countries. On LGF we use use links to define facts or to back positions - and these also differentiate fact from opinion. As with any site with open commentary - you will frequently get plenty of opinions.

In the discussions of these opinions and the resulting debates - you will find passionate defences and claims. You will also find more tolerance than on many webblogs for different viewpoints. Good comments and positions are recognized for what they are - and crass ones are equally fast to be addressed by those who disagree.

Perhaps what bothers you the most is that opinions without willingness to debate in good faith and politically correctness are generally not tolerated well.

The bile and hatred one can find on "left" leaning blogs in my opinion far exceed the statements of hatred on LGF. And unlike LGF, anyone referencing differing points of view on those other sites, are more likely to be shouted down, intimidated, or banned.

Charles's role with LGF to me is to stimulate discussion, and let people interact, and on the site we will learn about issues that we are facing. You call it a hate site because at times LGF is less than friendly towards Islam. Some people cherry pick comments to support this viewpoint - but how many of you came to LGF with an open mind, a willingness to debate in good faith, and an understanding of history or a supply of facts?

Do differing viewpoints threaten you so much that it has to be defamed and shut down? Or are your egos such that you aren't willing to participate, learn, and perhaps have your viewpoint handed back to you by someone else on LGF who might be able to educate you at same time.

Debate and discussion are what takes place on LGF. Only on rare occassions does the rhetoric cross that line - and on those events either the regular posters or Charles step in. I've seen as many events that have involved hatred from both sides of the philosophical aisle. That's real life. That's what happens in debate and discussion. That is freedom of speech.

But to denigrate the site because you don't agree with it isn't intellectually honest. Stay away from it if you wish - but if you do - its really your loss.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I am one who believes the most efficacious way to combat and pass victory over an enemy is know him.

Which is exactly why you need to keep reading LGF.

I was suspicious, Jheka! What a creep!!

Kori, we hate an ideology.....an Ideology that is called Islam that makes people behave in the most obscene brutal ways and has done so for 1400 years......please learn what a dichtomoy is......Muslims are the first victims of Islam...let us never forget that....

Thanks

TC -- ISTR that CJ announced that he had to group-ban a bunch of AOL addresses, so it might be that your domain is blocked.

Babylonian -- wow, another "I was banned!" story from somebody who I can't remember ever seeing in the comment threads. What, did you guys all get the same script?

What threads do you remember posting on?

Another long time LGF poster here - going on 2 years - and I just wanted to repeat the obvious - even though it has already been stated so eloquently by others. Charles provides an incredibly valuable service and community unlike any other around and I thank him for it.

As anybody who has tried knows, if you go to LGF with a sincere desire to debate, you'll meet dozens of well educated men and women more than willing to participate. I've occasionally seen dissenting views that were misunderstood to be trolling, but assuming they stick around and display the remotest hint of sincerity, they'll find a warm (albeit challenging) environment.

LGF is an indispensable tool for anybody serious about understanding what's going on in the world right now - that a fraction of a percentage of comments are over the top should not deter those serious about seeking knowledge from learning from both the LGF posts/links and the comments.

Again, thank you Charles for all you do.

Chuckg-I should have thought of the AOL thing. D'oh.

Charles is being disingenuous about who he blocks and why:

I was banned, and my IP blocked as well by Charles for simply and civilly speaking my mind - trying to represent non hate-filled Jewish left wing people. I was never rude or abusive, though I was often cursed at and insulted by the LGF people, simply for expressing carefully written and often well documented information

Eventually they presumed that I must not really be Jewish after all and that I must be one of the Arabs that they are so obsessed with.

Who knows, maybe Charles wants to present Jewish people as hate mongers, and incites it on purpose.

And you know, it's not just that the site is often racist and hate filled.

The site gets really into calls for ethnic cleansing too and other funkiness:
Charles wrote:Guaranteed: bring up the subject of “transferring” Palestinians and the usual suspects will start shrieking “genocide.”

In that ethnic cleansing thread Charles writes:
"To be honest, I hesitated to post this entry because I knew I’d be called a racist and an “ethnic cleanser” just for mentioning it."

well gee, Charles, whatever made you think someone would think of you as an "ethnic cleanser" for sounding all pleased that a US Republican endorsed ethnic cleansing in Palestine and then posting supporting pro-ethnic cleansing materials from an ultra-right-wing ultra-nationalist illegal settler pirate radio station? You never did say if you thought it was a bad idea did you

Say what you want about some of the LGF posters, but you cannot accuse Charles of banning people for being "liberal". It takes a real abusive ass, or obvious troll, to get banned from LGF. The reason why so few liberals are present on the site because it's a sharktank for such individuals, not because anyone censors them out.

Pity we can't say the same about sites like Daily Kos and Democraticunderground, eh?

Based on your ranting persona here you're not missed, Babylonian, and I doubt your self-characterization as a civil, fact-equipped poster is accurate.

Proud Albertan,

Yeah, don't go on believing everything George W. Bush tells you. Try reading a bit of history instead. There are libraries full of them.

You might for example try reading the history of Chechnia and the brutality inflicted on them by the Russians over the centuries. They never considered themselves as part of Russia and have always fought against them. But of course by G.W. Bush's definition they are to be regarded as terrorists.

If Alberta Canada was invaded would you join in the fight against the invader and be prepared to
be considered a terrorist by the enemy?

It's all about OIL and Israel. Remember that Bush, Cheney and Co. are all oil guys!

Saddam was a cream puff and didn't constitute a threat to anyone. Bush, who never served in a conflict himself was quite prepared to sacrifice the lives of American troops in a big oil play.

Ed.

Ismail, I don't know either way what you posted or didn't post at LGF. You allude to it, but you don't quote it.

Can you say exactly what you said, without paraphrasing or ellisions? I find it hard to believe that you'd be banned and deleted w/o some cause.

Of course, you don't have to respond to me. That's your right & no harm, no foul. I'm just curious w/ what led to your banning.

I stopped visiting LGF not only because I was outnumbered (I'm here, right?), and not only because the right-wing commenters were routinely hostile and personally insulting, but principally because most of them don't know their heads from their asses on the Middle East and don't want to learn.[*] Sure, it's good that LGF republishes some nuggets from MEMRI or even Debka, but once you've found those links, why stay for the comments? Just an echo chamber of people looking for a safe place to write a type of bigotry that, even against Muslims or Arabs, isn't acceptable in polite discourse.

[*] LGF was split between commenters who claimed Israel would never officially practice torture (and only anti-Semites would think that) and those who claimed that Israel practiced torture that was well-justified by the security situation (and only anti-Semites would deny this right). My attempt to get A to argue with B while I took on the winner, alas, failed.

evariste:

Have a little faith, my friend ... I did not suddenly turn troll :) ... the real Jheka

TC wrote:

Odd...I just linked to LGF through WOC and was not allowed to comment...anyone know why that might be? Honestly, although I was prepared to defend WOC, Joe and AL, I had positive things to say about the information offered on the site.

You got caught in a block against the UCLA IP range, that I had to put up after a series of insane posts came from there. I removed that block, and you won't have a problem now.

Armed Liberal...

"...WoCers are moral relativists who believe that the West's conception of good and evil is no more valid than that of any other culture.' Can I invite you read around and revisit that idea?"

Perhaps you should expound further on your comment at the very top when you say...

"we're willing to accept the humanity of everyone - including our enemies..."

I'm not a philosophy expert, but this sounds like moral relativism to me. The key word is "humanity", which has many meanings.

Ismail: tell me the name you posted under. It's easy to make an accusation like yours, but if you have any courage, you'll give me the information I need to track down your exact post, so we can all see why you were banned.

Kori

Hating each other will never get us anywhere, except maybe to our own hell on Earth.

In case you didn't notice, you've got it whether you want to engage in "meaningful political dialogue" or not. War has been declared on us and whiile you stuggle to understand or engage, people are dying. The time for talk is over. Talk is cheap, particularly in this case.

I find it very interesting that none of the LGF-bashers here have seen fit to address the "skunk" that was rolled into this discussion by Armed Liberal earlier:

"Let me roll a skunk into the discussion.

You say '...I would say it's pretty obvious that religious persecution is a dangerous activity to participate in (or encourage).'

What if the religion involved is bad? What if it, as a mainstream value, advocates things which we find horrible and intolerable?

You're starting out pretty much as the rest of us do; assuming that everyone is the same except that they eat spicier food than we do and wear more interesting clothers (hyperbole, I know, but bear with me).

What if they aren't?

A.L."

This, to me, is the 800-lb gorilla sitting in the room with us here. I am a regular LGF reader and find it invaluable because IT DOES NOT IGNORE THE SKUNK. I am easily able to sort out what is racist and intolerant in the comments section, which, IMO, is actually a very small percentage of the total.

Kori: you seem to be opposed to hate in all its forms. I'd like to challenge you with the words of Lance Morrow, written on Sept. 12, 2001:

"For once, let’s have no “grief counselors” standing by with banal consolations, as if the purpose, in the midst of all this, were merely to make everyone feel better as quickly as possible. We shouldn’t feel better.

For once, let’s have no fatuous rhetoric about “healing.” Healing is inappropriate now, and dangerous. There will be time later for the tears of misfortune note.

A day cannot live in infamy without the nourishment of rage. Let’s have rage. What’s needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury—a ruthless indignation that doesn’t leak away in a week or two, wandering off into Prozac-induced forgetfulness or into the next media sensation (O.J. … Elián … Chandra …) or into a corruptly thoughtful relativism (as has happened in the recent past, when, for example, you might hear someone say, “Terrible what he did, of course, but, you know, the Unabomber does have a point, doesn’t he, about modern technology?”).

Let America explore the rich reciprocal possibilities of the fatwa. A policy of focused brutality does not come easily to a self-conscious, self-indulgent, contradictory, diverse, humane nation with a short attention span. America needs to relearn a lost discipline, self-confident relentlessness—and to relearn why human nature has equipped us all with a weapon (abhorred in decent peacetime societies) called hatred."

All the banned people claiming "I wasn't like the others, man! I was reasonable and nice!" are about as credible as all the guys in jail who are "innocent". Charles doesn't ban people for disagreeing civilly with a level head. That's just a load of...
And the regulars won't abuse and curse at and insult someone who's really there to have a conversation, either. Babylonian and Ed Woodman just sound like delusional ranting street preachers.
What poppycock.

By the way, some of the people posting here are now trying to get our hosting company to terminate our account.

Lovely folks.

I barely have time to toss in my " 2 cents worth", but LGF (on the whole) is interesting, informative, funny...and that's why thousands of people visit the site every day.

As for getting flamed, I've had disagreements with various LGF posters, including Charles, but I never got anything but polite debate. Perhaps it's because I didn't preface all my posts with, "Now listen here, you flaming rightwing suchandsuch!"

E.A. Woodman

Your last post reveals all anyone needs to know about you.

I believe LGF is the most timely and informative site on the internet. Eighteen to twenty-four months ago I followed some link to LGF and have been visiting almost daily ever since. At first, I could go there in the evening and read all Charles' posted news items and all the comments in less than an hour. Now that's impossible, with comments exceeding 1,000 and more most days. The notion that Charles can monitor every comment is ludicrous. Comments which are deleted are not simple dissent from the views held by most posters, but what I think of as stink bombs thrown out mostly to be offensive.

Some regulars do have strong views and make comments that some will find offensive, but I have to admit that most don't bother me. During the twentieth century we had a war where only total defeat and unconditional surrender of the enemies was considered acceptable. Some at LGF think we might be headed toward that with radical Islam, and they at times express opinions consistent with that view, and some include the states which support and/or tolerate the international terrorists. I don't think anyone can say for certain it won't come to that, and I believe whether it does or not will not be determined by the west, but by the longer range intentions of Muslims.

After reading LGF for a time, one learns about the regular posters and where some of them "are coming from." Quite a few can tell you about what percent of the families were lost in the holocaust, or how their parents or grandparents managed to escape. So, LGF is very much anti-terror and pro-Israel.

But in spite of the occasional over-the-edge remarks, one can come there and get perspectives from many Americans of various backgrounds, plus Europeans from several countries and Israelis, particularly interesting when major events take place. As mentioned in other posts, there are many very intelligent and well informed participants, and most anyone could learn a great deal if they get in on the right discussion thread. The regulars are extremely quick to answer any questions, and almost always produce well reasoned and well documented responses.

But all the PC hairsplitting going on here seems ridiculous. I don't care how many nice Muslim co-workers one might have. Have you heard the term "bloody borders"? Do you know if your nice co-worker believes that Muslims have a religious duty to bring Islamic law wherever they might live? Do you wonder why every opinion poll shows 60% or more of Muslims supporting OBL and suicide bombers? What do you really know about the actions of the prophet Mohammed during his lifetime? Do you believe that Islam really does mean peace?

All these self-appointed moral arbiters getting getting off criticizing Charles and LGF because of occasional over-the-edge remarks by posters mostly seem naive and very impressed with themselves. Maybe you should come to LGF and find some old threads of interest to you, and read enough newer ones to really get a flavor for what goes on there. I think many of you could learn a great deal because there is a wealth of well supported information that has accumulated over more than two years. Or maybe you think 9/11 and all that's happened since, and continues to happen, is nothing to be concerned about. But if you think it is something to be concerned about, LGF is the best place on the web to stay informed about the WoT, Israel, Islam and other related topics.

But people there are no where near as hyper-sensitive and PC as some of the posters here. And, yes, PC does have a lot to doe with this entire discussion tonight.

I don't understand this percentage defense, Charles.

Who cares if it's 0.003% or whatever. The fact of the matter is that you see the post and do nothing about it, but manage to quickly delete any anti-semitic comments in a matter of minutes. I've visited the site a few times and noticed one particular poster by the name of camel prophet, who constantly talks about killing all muslims before it's too late. You even attribute him as the source (ie "hat tip") of some of your posts.

LGF takes individual stories from a sample pool of 1.3 billion muslims (the percentage defense works here too) and makes gross generalisations. There's nothing new to this tactic, it's been used against blacks by several groups.

Of course Islam needs to be questioned in this critical juncture, but not in the manner that's conducted by LGF.

My theory is that Charles feels that if he takes too hard a line against the anti-muslim posts his visitor counts will take a huge hit.

Ed

Quite a surprise seeing anything regarding history coming from you, oh willfully blind one. Physician, heal thyself!

Considering the amoung of hackneyed, trite, resoundingly pummeled canards you float, I can see why you were banned. Yet you reject my links AND my request for an answer to a very simple question.

If it was really about oil we'd have drilled in ANWR and invaded Mexico and/or Venezuela Ed. Closer and cheaper.

Lili,

I'm hardly educated about Islam, and I have no problem saying anything "politically correct" (though I've never been accused of such) if I happen to be so. That said, I understand what you are saying about Islam covering all the bases. It is, however, diverse, which seems obvious to me. And certainly offshoots/subcategories such as Ibadi Muslims, Bahai'i, Sufis, arguably Sikhs have very different ways of intepreting the political aspects of the Qur'an -- a book which, by the way, is written so poetically, can be quite flexibly interpreted.

You know that just because some fundamentalist types have declared a war on our civilization doesn't mean that's what it is, right? They're not going to win. That should be obvious. It is therefore up to us to determine the terms of engagement. Democracies don't do "wars of civilizations" -- religions and political religions like fascism do. But by and large the regimes comprising the Arab regimes are creaky autocratic entities buckling from political, demographic and economic pressure. They're not necessarily religious in nature, and not all events occuring there need to be viewed through that lens.

Living in peace is what all religions are/should be about. Some do this better than others. Obviously Catholicism has been put in its place. There is no need for us to cry The End of the World for Islam to grow up too. Especially when the part of the world we're really worried about -- the Arab world (which is only one part of the Islamic world) -- can be engaged on numerous fronts excluding the religious ones. Don't be so narrow-minded; you'll never convince them to open up that way.

Oh and the other thing? Remember that there are 1.3 billion Muslims out there. It would be pragmatic to not treat them as all the same. It would also be wise to note that if you're thinking all of them are worthy of destruction, that's quite a bit of death. Better to learn how to coexist, and evolve towards peace.

NTropy - I'm a little baffled by your comments. Do you feel we're not acting enough? I don't think you can ever stop knowing your enemy -- the whole point of action is to destroy your enemy -- then you can stop knowing him! :-) But who is that enemy? Is it Islam? Or the perversion of Islam that many are using to politically oppress or murder with? I like "Islamofascism" myself; I think that captures it nicely.

Furthermore, there's never a time for talk to be over on blogs. :) If you think it's cheap, I don't believe anyone is forcing you to type your words?

JC - I engaged in the skunk, way way upthread. But frankly, so many people are posting, it's hard to keep up. I may not continue.

'is hateful:

"see there you go doing your LGF thing, that's not even close to anything he said"

Well, I if you read my post I didn't condemn Kos for his post. I merely question what he said, that he felt it was conscionable for Iraqis to defile the bodies of americans. Later he said it was because they were paid mercenaries instead soldiers. Forgive me if I am still left wondering what he is implying, being that he was popular enough to have a presidential campaign banner. In the other parts of my post I also talked about inappropriate comments on LGF. Do you agree?

Kori: "the people there overwhelmingly hate others, rather than phenomena"

A phenomena did not fly those planes into the Twin Towers nor the Pentagon nor a field in Pennsylvania. They were specific men, driven by a specific set of beliefs, the same beliefs held by many other men that would proudly do the same thing, killing more of our friends and relatives.

why do you not protest against the Arab and Islamic opression of women? the brutal Syrian occupation of Lebanon? the PA/PLO's terrorism of Palestinian dissidents? The endemic mutilation of girls' genitals in Egypt?

Excuse me, "brutal Syrian occupation of Lebanon"? Since when do the Syrians fire missles from Apache helicopters into crowded marketplaces, or raze entire towns with American made bulldozers? You might do well to buy a whiff of perspective here, Tony.

By the way, LGF has at least 4 arab regulars. How many arabs and muslims do you have participating here?

Wow, 4 whole Arabs, out of a pile of hundreds of frothing, raging anti-Arab zealots. That's a useful statistic.

We judge you by the company you keep, Tony. Do the words "sell-out" mean anything to you?

Ismail: I'm waiting for your information so I can check on why you were banned.

If you really were.

Of course Islam needs to be questioned in this critical juncture, but not in the manner that's conducted by LGF.

In all earnestness, do you have a suggestion? How would you do it?

Yes, Arabs who don't hate America and Jews don't count. Thanks for the clarification, Sellam Ismail.
And Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom.
You'd do better to keep quiet, because when you speak we can all tell how ugly you are inside, Sellam.

Glad to read that Saddam was a cream puff (?) who never posed a threat to anyone, Ed. Guess those mass graves filled with, among others, toddlers and their toys weren't anybody.

Did they not count because they were children? Did they not count because of their religion? What, specifically, was the reason that they don't count? I'm really curious about that. Why didn't their family members and villagers count, Ed?

And why aren't you checking my account Charles?

"Arguing from extremes" in comments sections, whether here or at LGF, or on the Yahoo chat boards, or at DailyPundit, etc., is simply a ridiculous pastime.

Can it really be distilled to such simple terms that LGF is a hate site and Charles the hate-monger? Charles posts a translation from MEMRI of a sermon from a Mosque in Riyadh, and out of hundreds of comments, some are quite vile.

By extension, can it be also be said that Yahoo is a hate-site and Yahoo News the hate-mongers? After all, Yahoo posts a story from the AP about 12 Marines killed in battle in Iraq and out of thousands of comments, some are quite vile.

Sounds silly to me; Yahoo is clearly not a hate-site yet some of the comments on Yahoo are nothing less than racist.

This leads to the question (one I am sure asked here before): Are the comments in a site considered a part of the editorial content of that site? I don't believe they are; I am sure there are those who would disagree with me.

As to what Charles deletes and what he does not: although I cannot cite the case exactly (so to speak), I do recall that a comment advocating the deaths of muslims in the US quickly disappeared with a warning from Charles. This example is anecdotal, but I believe not unique.

Are some of the comments simply hate-filled emotional posts and "arguments from extremes"? Yes. All? No. Are they a part of the editorial content offered by Charles on LGF? No.

Do some of the comments on LGF erode our standing "..to accept the humanity of everyone - including our enemies"? This is tricky, since a comment is, to me, a "letter to the editor" while a blog is analogous to an old-fashioned pamphlet; the comments represent only the commentor in response to a post. In Charles' case, the post is a link to an existing news source. I don't believe the comments erode our standing. I do believe, however, that a position taken on a blog is a different matter and, as an essentially editorial statement, represents our standing whatever that standing may be. I have not read anything by LGF that could be considered (editorially) hateful.

Caveat: I personally eroded that standing as A.L. describes it when I exhibited not a little joy when Yassin was assassinated. It was a hasty post in an emotional moment, and although I am embarassed by it now, I leave it up along with a later, more sober, post. I also get about 4 comments per week, so policing comments is easier than for some of you guys. However, a comment on my weblog is not my weblog, and it represents not me but the person who left the comment.

OK, this is turning into a blog post in and of itself, and so enough rambling from me!

Well Max Darkside, obviously, but they were also phenomena in that they took advantage of our leaky immigration system, our sleeping intelligence services, and our general cultural lack of awareness to their existence, not to mention bases of operations in Afghanistan, to support and fund their trip to heaven. Don't fall into the same trap the extreme left does -- these aren't people that woke up one day to kill us. They have systemic financial and military support and coherent ideology -- they have in short, strengths, and therefore weaknesses. So do we. That's the nature of the game.

They also have sick societies helping them along with moral support, but that's another can of worms or phenomena if you prefer.

I would expect censorship in the old Soviet Union or such dictatorships but in 'The Land of the Free' to learn that you have to suck up to the proprietor's political leaning, makes the term Free Press a bit of a joke.

I personally believe that most journalistic opinion is biased towards the proprietor's views. Let's face it. It is his business after all and journalists only retain their jobs by complying with the employer's wishes. People like Murdoch, Conrad Black and the like consider themseves kingmakers and do their utmost to deliver votes to whatever politicians they have in their pockets in return for favours.

So, by all means read the postings of the trogs, with their heads up their asses, on Little Green Fascists but go the bathroom afterwards and wash yourself thoroughly. It might make you feel a bit better.

Ed

Excuse me, "brutal Syrian occupation of Lebanon"? Since when do the Syrians fire missles [sic] from Apache helicopters into crowded marketplaces, or raze entire towns with American made bulldozers? You might do well to buy a whiff of perspective here, Tony.

Good point, Syrians have been occupying Lebanon passively, ignoring all those suicide bombers and the multiple attempts made by organized and European-funded Lebanese terrorist groups allied with various neighboring nations to invade and annihilate every last Syrian. The arming of militia/terrorist groups in crowded Lebanese towns and villages was also done very passively, but hey, putting military equipment dead center in the middle of populated civilian towns is the epitome of passivity, huh? Oh, and the ever so passive refusal to give Palestinians the mere semblance of equal citizenship lest their proxy war against Israel be harmed is, well, ever so humanitarian.

If you're trying to compare Baathist Syria to Israel, you have quite the uphill battle ahead of you, I suggest you to move on.

SecHumaniest, Oh I am waiting for his weak attempt to try to compare Baathist Syria to Democratic Israel. Then we can talk about the Kurdish uprising in Syria and its occpuation of Lebanon etc etc etc.

Kori

Do you feel we're not acting enough?

In many ways, yes.

I don't think you can ever stop knowing your enemy -- the whole point of action is to destroy your enemy -- then you can stop knowing him! :-)

Or until he takes action and destroys us. And quite honestly I would prefer the former over the latter any day. And since the latter is the expressed desire of our enemy, I believe I know him well enough right now.

But who is that enemy? Is it Islam? Or the perversion of Islam that many are using to politically oppress or murder with? I like "Islamofascism" myself; I think that captures it nicely.

I don't believe there is a distinction. Muslims are not Western rugged individualists. That isn't their culture. I believe it aligns more with the Central and South American affinity for the "strong man". As Charles commented recently, Arab Muslims are a tribal culture based on shame and saving face. Between the two, I don't think there is any difference between Islam and "Islamofascism" as you termed it. I was going to limit it to simply Middle Eastern Islam but the same is reflected in Islam of the Pacific Rim as well as Western European Islam embodied in immigrants.

I don't have time to post often, but I regularly read LGF. Some of the comments and posters do cross the line of 'taste' in their comments but there is nothing here that leads me to conclude that LGF is a hang-out for anti-anyone's.

One thing I found very attractive about LGF, when I first started reading and posting, was that there were many people who had a similar background to me and seemed to be having the same journey I'm having. It was not, and is not, an easy journey. I was very glad to find a blog where the posters were not afraid of speaking in ways Liberals have been taught NOT to speak.

Liberals have an automatic suppression in the brain that immediately retreats from passing judgements. "No group is worse or better than another group." --> That's the mentality I had ingrained into me.

My background is very Liberal. I never read much about the groups like Osama's until after 9/11. What I read, FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITES, shocked me.
As I continued to read more and more I was very alarmed. I was uncomfortable being alarmed because my alarm stemmed from a judgement I had made about groups like Osama's. My judgement was NOT in their favor.

I realized, as I read the Islamists' sites, that they did not want anything we had. They want to take over and reshape our world to be one huge Caliphate. There isn't anything we can offer to them that would cause them to give up this goal.

Now, it hasn't been very popular to talk like this among many Liberals. I know, because I rejected my conclusions at first since they went counter to my Liberal world-view. But, I couldn't deny what I had been reading. It was all spelled out.

What I found so comforting about LGF was the fact that there were many others with my background who were making the same discoveries I was making. They felt as uncomfortable as I did, at first. But when you take the blinders off and start believing the writings and actions of the Islamists, you realize you must expose what is going on.

LGF reports stories the major media may cover, but not very well. We have become too conservative in our Liberalism to allow our media to state bluntly what is happening around the world.

Many of the opinions may not be liked by some. That's ok, I don't like the opinions on some other blogs. But I think what is REALLY disliked is the refusal of LGF and its posters to be cowered by the 'thought/word/speech' police who are the self-appointed guardians of our 'free' society.

What is talked about is a shock to people who are used to having targets like the US &/or Israel as the perpetual bad guys. It's not considered proper to point out any other group's failings except for the US, Israel, Right Wing Conspiracy, Christians Fundamentalists, etc..

It's been so long that people have had a chance to look at things from another viewpoint that makes LGF offensive to some. The views expressed are not the ones they are used to and they don't like them being expressed.

I have never found the topics to be anti-anyone. It's just discussions on news of the day. The posters on LGF are speaking truth to the power held by the 'thought/word/ideology' police and speaking truth to power has always been unpleasant for the speakers.

Ed, Ed, Ed (shaking head sadly). You really must hone up on your debating skills.

Kori:

our leaky immigration system
(check)

our sleeping intelligence services
(check)

our general cultural lack of awareness to their existence
(could work more on this)

bases of operations in Afghanistan
(check)

systemic financial [support]
(check)

military support
(check)

coherent ideology
(could work more on this)

Looks like you've nicely covered President Bush's on-the-mark execution. We could work more on the awareness of the ideology. That's EXACTLY where LGF and other sites like it, is helping.

Ntropy,

The first thing I'd do is make a clear distinction between extremist Muslims (i.e. wahabist) and ordinary Muslims, who pretty much have the same priorities as everyone else (i.e. wanting a good future for their children etc etc)

Stephen Schwartz is a prime example of how one can attack the enemies we now face without creating a west vs. Islam atmosphere. Incidentally, his opinion of LGF isn’t all that positive.

LGF doesn't make this distinction and actually suggests that Islam as a whole is inherently flawed (similar to proud Albertans post)

Muslims are not going to be forced into mass conversion so why not attack the extremist instead of giving them ammo for their propaganda?

Thanks for the sincere question btw. Given how passionate people are in this thread it’s easy for one to insult those who they disagree with.

Sean,

And just what would that be? I've got a thick skin. I'm not going to cry. Take your best shot.

Ed.

OK, as to the substance of this discussion:

I have been posting on LGF for just over a year and a half (my first post was on 09/06/02). In my time there I have met some of the most decent, thoughtful, introspective people on the web. these include (but are most emphatically not limited to) Occasional Reader, colt, mommydoc, hans ze beeman (who came to LGF disagreeing with just about everything and everybody but was civil and thoughtful, was NOT banned or anything close to it and eventually became a respected contributor), evariste, monsterdog, levely, lizzy and literally scores of others. There are terrific writing talents who post there (iowahawk, e.nough, allah, etc.,). What is in VERY short supply is racism or blind bigotry of any nature. Is Islamism despised? You bet. But ask just about any regular poster and they'll explain exactly why they hold the view that they hold. You may disagree with their reasoning, but you're going to get a reason because when there is a difference of opinion, simple sloganeering is very much frowned upon by the regulars. LGFers comiserate, argue, debate (with each other and newcomers) and are proud of the fact that LGF is "the site that fact checks your ... um ... tush." "Nuke Mecca" and other strange lefty projections is most emphatically NOT the prevailing view at LGF (whose posters can generally be described as pragmatic). LGFers, rather than hating all Muslims or Arabs are constantly in search of the rare "moderates" in those groups and, when such brave sould are found, they are lionized on LGF. Here, check this out ... look how the Arab ("amal") and liberal ("leftist") posters are treated in this thread:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9738

LGFers hate Muslims and Iraqis? Kinda hard to reconcile that thought with this thread:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9236

And when you get done with that, allow me to show you the single best blog thread that I have ever had the pleasure to read:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9299

Anybody who says that the blog that produced that thread is a hate site is, in my opinion, just nuts.

The Syrians never used American-made bulldozers to raze an entire town.

They used Soviet-made bulldozers.

In 1982, in the town of Hama, Assad killed between 20,000 and 40,000 people using guns, tanks, and cyanide gas.

So to answer your question, Sellam, since when?

Since 1982. (At least)

So, by all means read the postings of the trogs, with their heads up their asses, on Little Green Fascists but go the bathroom afterwards and wash yourself thoroughly. It might make you feel a bit better

Way to go ED!! At least you stayed true to form. Never did let the fact in did you? "I know what I know no matter what people tell me to the contrary. It simply doesn't fit my world view. Facts can be so inconvenient."

Charles and the LGF minions are a valuable resource. It is the place that will "fact check your ass" and expose the unchallenged, unchecked calliphate desires of the world's Imans. It exposes the anti-Semetic professors who believe their tenured status gives them impunity no matter what bile they spew. It has become a thorn in side of those in the media who are used to the free pass they have enjoyed without question. The minions are Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Aethiests and yes even Muslims. They are gay, straight, pro-Bush, anti-Bush and many places in between. There are people from all walks of life, income, ethinic groups and countries. So please, the diversity of LGF is it's strength and hardly "fascist." If you are concerned about neo-nazis, look to the next Islamic Conference in your area. Chances are, they'll be some attending as guest speakers (William Baker in particular). Something you can learn about at LGF.

NTropy,

Get up your nose, did I? Don't worry. Ypu will get over it.

Ed.

I think the anti-LGF posters are hypocrites. They should spend a few weeks hanging around Muslim bullitin boards, reading Arabic language newspapers and such before they denouce LGF.

They should also read the Koran and the various collections of hadiths. Scary stuff!

Half of the supposed slurs on Muslim that were quoted are factual and understatements if anything.

Anyway even if comments on LGF aren't all worth reading, the links to current news tell a story that we can't afford to be ignorant of.

"I personally believe that most journalistic opinion is biased towards the proprietor's views. Let's face it. It is his business after all and journalists only retain their jobs by complying with the employer's wishes. People like Murdoch, Conrad Black and the like consider themseves kingmakers and do their utmost to deliver votes to whatever politicians they have in their pockets in return for favours."

Ed, do you feel the same way if the publisher's name is Sulzberger, Graham, and or Carroll?

Swamp Woman,

Lack of a college education I guess. I'm just grateful that the proprietor hasn't banned me so far. Anyway folks, have to be off to work. God bless you all!

Ed.

The first thing I'd do is make a clear distinction between extremist Muslims (i.e. wahabist) and ordinary Muslims, who pretty much have the same priorities as everyone else (i.e. wanting a good future for their children etc etc)

Ahh the almost mythical "moderate Muslim". Yes, a little testy - sorry. There is no mass of moderates. There is no place for them. The moderate Muslim is killed by his "radical" brethren. This leaves the enemy and the indifferent.

LGF doesn't make this distinction and actually suggests that Islam as a whole is inherently flawed

Though I'm not Jewish I came to this conclusion the summer of 1972 when, as a 7 year old, I watched Israeli athletes being killed for being Jews. LGF has simply reinforced that belief.

Muslims are not going to be forced into mass conversion so why not attack the extremist instead of giving them ammo for their propaganda?

First of all, nobody is asking for conversion, just a little house cleaning.
For the sake of argument, let's assume I'm wrong. So, who are the radicals, the extremists? House of Saud? The mad mullahs of Iran? The genocidal monsters in Sudan? The gross anti-semites in Malaysia? And what do we do with all of them? And if they're only a fringe element, how did so many rise to power? I stand by my opinion that Islam is fundamentally flawed. Until it goes through it's own Protestant Reformation, it stands to be as much an enemy of the West as was Soviet Socialism. Re: Stephen Schwartz
Gahh! Gimme a link please :-) I asked with sincerity but I need to be able to follow, even if it's here heheh.

This whole vindictive post against LGF is exemplary of the common green-brown alliance tactic: deflection of criticism via character assasination - eg your'e a racist because you dare fascilitate dissent from Lefty groupthink. God forbid that we should feel any sense of self-preservation through the clash of civilizations that we are currently in, or criticize the neo-Thuggee branch of the multi-culti cult.

Those who do not think the civilized world is under attack by a global jihadist ideology enjoying considerable active support among the world's muslim's, and HUGE passive support, will probably not understand or like LGF.

Those who do treasure it as a rare beacon of honesty in a desert of masochistically self-blinding Western degeneracy, ruled by the political correctness criterion and its indifference to ugly realities.

The site is not remotely racist, since it concerns itself solely with the precisely targeted criticism of a particular totalitarian and unbelievably violent cultural tendency (the swelling fascist strain within Islam).

Long live LGF!

PS. WoC is also pretty cool, though tending to cuddly naivety.

Tim

I've read Schwartz's The Two Faces of Islam. I was wondering how you know what his opinion is concerning LGF.

Ed.
Just a tad. I don't mind being ignored, personally. Heck I substitute teach, I'm used to it. I just hate seeing somebody being so willfully stupid.

Athos,

That is a bit too eclectic for me to digest. Got to go.

Ed.

"Saddam was a cream puff and didn't constitute a threat to anyone. "

Well, Woodman, those 2 million Iraqis he murdered and the 25K a pop for a jihadi might not exactly make him look like a "cream puff."

" It is, however, diverse, which seems obvious to me. And certainly offshoots/subcategories such as Ibadi Muslims, Bahai'i, Sufis, arguably Sikhs have very different ways of intepreting the political aspects of the Qur'an -- a book which, by the way, is written so poetically, can be quite flexibly interpreted."

Ah, no, not exactly. The Muslims are a diverse lot, however, they all have the same book—the Qur'an. And IF they follow it as Muhammad said to follow it then Islam cannot be interpreted or changed. That is the beauty of the whole scheme.

As to the "poetics," do you read Arabic? How can you say it can be "flexibly interpreted" when Muslims say it cannot?

"You know that just because some fundamentalist types have declared a war on our civilization doesn't mean that's what it is, right? They're not going to win. That should be obvious. It is therefore up to us to determine the terms of engagement. Democracies don't do "wars of civilizations" -- religions and political religions like fascism do."

Kori, it's not just the "fundamentalist types" its the silent MAJORITY who support and fund them. Who do you think funds Islamic terror? Ordinary Muslims with their nickel and dime zakat contributions and heavy financiers and even governments like the Saudis.

We are not doing a "war of civilizations" because there is only one civilization involved and then there are the barbarians we are all trying to defend ourselves against. Islam is a political religion—it is a fascist system!

"the Arab regimes are creaky autocratic entities buckling from political, demographic and economic pressure. They're not necessarily religious in nature, and not all events occuring there need to be viewed through that lens."

You know, for someone who has admitted knowing very little about Islam you certainly have some very erroneous opinions about the Arab world. They are not called Islamic states for nothing, Kori. The fear is that when their autocratic rulers meet their demise, as they inevitably must—there will be Islamofascism all over the place. If they all had "democracy" tomorrow the Muslim nations in the Arab world would for the most part vote in extremists.

"There is no need for us to cry The End of the World for Islam to grow up too. Especially when the part of the world we're really worried about -- the Arab world (which is only one part of the Islamic world) -- can be engaged on numerous fronts excluding the religious ones. Don't be so narrow-minded; you'll never convince them to open up that way."

Gees, Kori! The Arab world does NOT want to be "engaged." They want us to leave them alone—but, not stop giving them aid. I am not "narrow minded" I am a realists. The Arabs don't want to "open up" it is against their very closed, for thousands of years, culture.

"Remember that there are 1.3 billion Muslims out there. It would be pragmatic to not treat them as all the same. It would also be wise to note that if you're thinking all of them are worthy of destruction, that's quite a bit of death. Better to learn how to coexist, and evolve towards peace. "

Gees, it must be my lucky day! [roll eyes] I never said they are all "worthy of destruction"! However, they think the rest of the world, the "unbelievers" are worthy of destruction, BECAUSE—it says so in the Qur'an. All Muslims are not terrorists. But, ALL Islamic terrorists are Muslims. And until I see the silent supporters of Islamic terror marching in the streets by the MILLIONS each and every time there is an Islamic atrocity against innocents—I will not believe that they have peace in mind.

"But who is that enemy? Is it Islam? Or the perversion of Islam that many are using to politically oppress or murder with?"

The enemy is Islam. Backward, bigoted 7th century Islam. No question about it. Not only is Islam the enemy of "unbelievers" it is also the enemy of the so-called "moderate" Muslims because they, according to Islam are apostates!

Can you tell us what exactly you think we should be doing with Muslims to "engage" them? I have a few ideas such as cut them all off—Israel included (until she withdraws). I would Isolate Muslims from civilization until they learn to be civilized—which might take a long, long time. But, they do say they want us to leave them alone. What do you want to do?

Kori, have you ever read the Qur'an? Have you ever read the hadith? Have you ever read the sunnah? Have you ever read Bernard Lewis or Robert Spencer or Ibn Warraq or Ali Sina or any number of dozens of scholars who have written on this subject? If not—please— do so!

Lili

NTropy, it is precisely the confusion between Islam and Islamofascism that you express that is so sad. I don't believe there is any point in me arguing with you about the merits of that opinion (especially since I am interested in going to bed tonight) so let me just say that if you consider Islam the problem, you are dealing with 1.3 billion people -- if you desire to destroy their religion as the only way to combat the destruction arising from it, you are either advocating areligiousness or some sort of conversion to another religion. People have shown in history that they need religion. As I mentioned far upthread, it answers questions that we've had for ages. (And politics, or military strategy, are different matters.) Those questions won't go away, and for many in the world, let's just say the Arab world for now, Islam is all they know of as a source of answers. Religious cultures can be sick -- like Christianity in its many forms of Catholicism (and others) were sick -- but this is not so much the religion per se, as other phenomena at work -- the mixture of politics and religion for example. Poverty, illiteracy, which feed ignorance and therefore sheep mentality... In prosperous nations such as the industrialized West, Japan, others, religion plays a much weaker role because frankly we have such materialistic pursuits as Jeopardy or ski vacations to amuse and distract us, not questions of the soul. Those who have not much to do -- think of the unemployed -- are much more likely to fall prey to depression, and therefore spiritual salvation, which in many places, is embodied by the local imam, who despite his fiery anti-American rhetoric, offers you some respite. So there are many many factors at work here, not just a deficient religion. It's Islam that has been perverted. Regardless of the fact that you may think depravity is all that exists in Muslims, and therfore many of your fellow humans on this planet, it is not so. They like us are capable of working wonders with their spirits, minds and bodies, if they're nurtured to do so, and Islam captures much of that beauty -- as the Sufis (and others!) so amply demonstrate. It will take engagement not hate to someday live peacefully together. Never should we glorify the depravity of another -- our problems are big enough as it is -- to do so is simply to puff up our pride by rendering our challenge into