I knew I'd met John Bradley somewhere before and now I remember.... He's Lord Haw-Haw!

He calls Taranto "unethical?".... unbelievable.. WEll, maybe not it is the Arab News.

"Three simple words: I am gay."

Charles he doesn't even give you props. He just came to LGF to read some pro-Arab comments, he didn't expect some sort of Joe Katzman inquisition.

Noooooooooo one expects the Joe Katzman inquisition!:

Bradley's weapon is lying, lying and name calling;

his two weapons are lying, name calling and bad grammar;

his three weapons are lying, name calling, bad grammar and anti-semitism;

Wait thats no good let me start again Amongst his weaponry. . . amonst his weapons are such diverse elements as lying, name calling, bad grammar, anti-semitism and a fanatical devotion to his Arab master.

Cardinal Johnson read the charges:

Tie him (oh dear) Tie him...to the rack!

Confess! Confess!

Bradley, you jerk! All of the Kingdom is behind a firewall. Censorship at its finest. The country is one big concentration camp.

Apparently, Bradley missed the Intro To HTML class offered by his Arab News webmaster, as the whole concept of "linking" seems to be "lost" on "him". (Sorry. Think "Dr. Evil" and make the scare quotes with your own fingers to get the full effect).

It's generally considered poor form to require your readers to Ctl+C Ctl+V in order to navigate to another page towards which you wish to direct their attention.

Good grief! His poor grammar and run-on sentences seem to have effected even me!

I think I need to go wash my hands...

Given the fact that so many websites are blocked in Saudi AND
that Arab News is in English AND that it's pure PROPAGANDA, who is really its targeted reader?

Oh, and did I mention the fact that the Royal Prince who owned and ran Arab News was one of the 3 that was "dead" in the last week?!

Whazzup with Arab News?
And Taranto didn't have to make up the part about the Monster Truck Pull in SA: I saw it in the Arab News myself!
Bradley, it's not that so many of us "hate" radical Islamists and their apologists, we just really, really, really don't like them and their murdering, lying ways.
Thanks for asking!

The best part about the above comment? The word should be "affected".

Bradley is a snivelling chicken-shit who is still licking his wounds. Are Saudi paychecks big enough to atone for openly displaying this kind of idiocy or is Bradley truly this delusional? This isn't a rhetorical question - do you think Bradley honestly believes what he writes?

He says it all. He's laughable and the last laugh is on him.

"Arab News has received e-mails from many American readers who were so disgusted when they visited OpinionJournal.com after reading the article about Taranto that, as a result, they have promised to cancel their subscription to the print edition of The Wall Street Journal."

Ah, yeah. That would be David Duke, Lyndon LaRouche, Prince Bandar...

"many Americans..." as in four or five, probably.

Great! With all those new readers, maybe a few would like to pledge their support to Magen David Adom or send a few pizzas to the IDF?

#3 "Three simple words: I am gay."

I agree. I also think Bradley is gay. Straight men do not usually look for homosexual subtext in classic literature ([Link: www2.newpaltz.edu...]
Nor do they bother reading Edmund White and Jean Genet.

Western gay men are probably not persecuted in SA. If they keep their swishy behaviour hidden in the "compounds" the Saudis probably ignore them like they ignore the drunken wife swapping parties.

Bradley is a real life version of David Fisher from Six Feet Under. I've met queens like him who get a thrill out of living in the most conservative environments and feeling all naughty when they do the gay stuff. It wouldn't bother him if gay Saudis were executed. And his "girlfriend" is from South East Asia - home of the mail order bride.

Someone posted something here saying she once worked for/with Bradley. Does she think he is gay?

Yep, Bradley definitely likes to be spanked.

Two things:

Arab News is today alerting the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the American Muslim Alliance and the National Association of Muslim Journalists to the anti-Arab drive behind Taranto’s website.

All together now: ooooooh! (He is alerting them? Shouldn't they have been paying attention? They seem to pounce on everyone else who so much as suggests that perhaps Arab culture or Islam are not the peak of humanity's achievements.

Really, this whole thing is kind of sad. I mean, two whole columns dedicated to condemning James Taranto for his "bigoted" "anti-Arab" views? Wow, talk about your signs of insecurity. Or has Taranto struck a nerve?

Anyway, Charles, congratulations on making the Saudi big-time, even if anonymously.

Oh, this is RICH!

"I despise anti-Semitism from the very bottom of my heart, as does everyone else on the Arab News team."
—John R. Bradley, News Editor, Arab News, July 28, 2002

Now take a look at this adorable M. Khahil cartoon from July 30:

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

John, care to 'splain that?

John?

John may be gay, but my post was a Simpsons reference.

"Taranto has never been to Saudi Arabia, and I wrote in my last article how I would bet a billion dollars he would argue that his ignorance of the Kingdom is unimportant. For since when has a total lack of information and experience mattered to a fifth-rate bigot getting high on putting the boot into his victims? Taranto not only confirmed that prediction, but even managed to excel his previous arrogance by stating in his reply that he had absolutely no desire to visit the Kingdom or to learn more about it."

I've read this paragraph about six times, but it keeps making less and less sense. I think I'm getting stupider.

What's wierd about that?

I also have no desire to visit a 120-degree-in-the-shade sandbox of a country filled with besotted oil billionares and their 12th century slave population.

Screw 'em. I'm off for Moorea...

Who's with me?

I, for one, do not "loathe everything Saudi Arabian." As just one example, I do not loathe Saudi oil; I use it every day, so I resent it, but I do not loathe it.

I admit there are some things Saudi that I am not crazy about:

-- forcing school girls to burn to death rather than allowing them to leave a flaming building without "appropriate" head dress; don't like that one bit (is it extreme right-wing or racist for me to have wanted these girls to survive?).

-- cutting off digits or limbs for property crimes; that creeps me out (Doesn't that make me a bleeding heart?).

-- that if I were a resident, I could not drive and would have to have my husband's permission to travel; and not wild about the notion that my word, as a woman, would officially count as 1/2 that of a man (Does that really make me a rabid right-winger? These political labels get more and more confusing.)

-- the apparent inability to distinguish between adultery and rape (another example of feminism as conservatism, I guess?).

-- Oh, and that I wouldn't be allowed to openly practice my religion either, since it's not the government-sanctioned one.

-- funding Pakistani madrassas where students are taught to hate me because I'm American.

-- 15 of the 19; and here's the hell of it, 1 year ago, when "15 of the 19" was a nonsense phrase, I had no occasion to inquire about the things listed above (well, we all knew about the finger-chopping, but we didn't lose much sleep over it).

#19 John may be gay, but my post was a Simpsons reference.

Doh! :)
If it had been a Buffy quote I would have noticed it.

Actually, if I recall correctly, what Taranto wrote (and it was priceless) is that he really didn't care to visit Saudi Arabia until AFTER the revolution.

When he's out-debated and forced to slink away his response is that the "posters appear particularly to loathe everything Saudi Arabian, although none of them have ever been here." However, when US flags are burned in the West Bank, we're supposed to ask "why do they hate us?"

His duplicity is boundless.

Dear Mr. Bradley,

I would love to go to Saudi Arabia to see everything for myself first-hand. However, as a Jew I doubt I'll be welcomed in with open arms.

Precious.

His duplicity is as boundless as his paranoia and outright lunacy.

I've tried, since reading these two Arab News columns and his senseless posts here, to get my mind around just how remarkably stupid this man is. I can't do it.

He's the poster boy for everything idiotarian.

Gee, I have never visited Nazi Germany, I guess I am not qualified to say it was bad. I have never visited the USSR either. I guess I was wrong jumping to the conclusion that it was a hellhole. I suppose Cuba is really an island Workers Paradise, since I have never been there, I can't assume otherwise. I didn't personally see any of the concentration camps, come to think of it, so I can't make any comments about the holocaust. I haven't been to the moon, how do I know it isn't made of cheese?

Obviously this loser can't get a job at a real paper and has to be a shill for a propaganda rag. I would probably be bitter and defensive too if I were him. Imagine the only place you can make a living is that dreary sandlot. When you have that big of a chip on your shoulder it is good to have an audience of like minded sympathizers to share your pain.

I think E. Nough is right: Taranto has been striking a VERY raw nerve among the inhabitants of an impotent, joyless, sick-puppy culture which produces nothing, creates nothing, contributes nothing, heals nothing, which excels only at self-pity and worships a God who is evidently too insecure and narcissistic to tolerate unbelievers.

Taranto's amusing little tidbits on BOTW use the oil ticks' own words to point out their failings, and his success is driving them NUTS.

I just found the definition of "spin":

In his first response to my last article, published on OpinionJournal.com, Taranto could find absolutely no fault whatsoever with the substance of what I wrote about him, because he knew it was all true. So instead he tried to discredit me by saying I was a liar in having written that I am the author of the Lonely Planet Guide to Saudi Arabia.

When it was brought to the attention of his superiors at The Wall Street Journal that this statement was libelous because factually incorrect (I am indeed the author), Taranto had to eat humble pie by issuing a retraction when OpinionJournal.com was updated.

Here is the "retraction":

Pack Your Bags for Baghdad

Our friend John R. Bradley of the Arab News writes to clear up the mystery of the Lonely Planet guide to Saudi Arabia. It turns out to be one chapter in a forthcoming book...

This is hilarious. Don't feel bad about not getting an actual link from him, Charles. I suspect that Bradley's entire American audience consists of those of us who read him only when you post his articles for our amusement.

But I wonder which aspects of life in the oil rich desert kingdom Bradley likes? The sand? the camels? the oil? the beheadings? the censorship? the women who aren't permitted to drive? the schoolgirls who are permitted to burn to death? the telethons for suicide bombers? the kleptocratic form of government? or maybe it's simply the only country in the world that is willing to give this idiot a job

It seems like Bradley is off his medication again.

Stefan (#32) writes:

"But I wonder which aspects of life in the oil rich desert kingdom Bradley likes?"

Dadgumit, I'd go halfway 'round the earth for a really good monster truck show!

Oh come on Stefan, it's the civilized evening stroll down the corniche, don't you remember?

Bradley's another reason why I've been arguing that when the West finally strikes to the heart of Islamic terrorism, it'll have to go after the Saudi kleptocracy -- these folks *do* understand the importance of free speech and freedom of expression: it's a deadly threat to their regime.

Which is why they censor the 'net, and employ djimmi handmaidens like Bradley.

Not that Saudi Arabia is the only seat of Islamofascism -- see my weblog.
[Link: islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com...]

Mookie, they haven't invented the medication that can fix what ails him.

Fay, I would recommend a cup of hemlock for him.

Pardon my french:

"I could stick my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it."

As far as I know, all of our criticism of the Kingdom has been about...

1. The government
2. The insane religious laws

I don't remember ever criticizing the things he liked about SA, just the stuff he refused to talk about.

For someone who hates the western media for not be "dissenting" enough, he sure makes a wonderful Saudi whore. His writing style is also extremely poor for a "journalist". My composition is nearly as bad as his sometimes, but I'm not the "professional" here.

Don't feel bad about not getting an actual link from him, Charles.

But of course he wouldn't provide a link; he’s probably already told the Saudi Internet Service Unit to add LGF to their banned list. Lots of dangerous info around here, including that most subversive thing of all—humor.

Oh, God... I just went to Taranto's site. The guy wrote a book about the novels of Henry James (which always make me want to tear my hair out with depression!) and "homo-erotic desire."
Definitely GAY (and a drama queen to boot?!).
And now he writes for the house of Frahd?
When he's not writing Obits for the AP...
With the way those princes have been kicking the bucket in SA, *that* experience will come in handy!
And I think being homosexual--face it, the man lives in San Francisco!--is the Arab males' "secret vice."
Ask around.

"What? They have blocked our local surfurs? Well we will return fire in kind!"

Lessee...
"hate"
"right-wing"
"blocks all access to those surfing the net in Saudi Arabia"
Charles, you've ratted him out for badmouthing the royal family!

I checked a few books I own that weren't written by a single person. Individuals who provided a single section or essay were called "Contributors" or "Writers". They were not called "Authors". Maybe the problem is Bradley's writing ability. If that's the case it's a mistake that inflates his credentials.

Bradley complains that critics of Saudi Arabia have never been to the place. To me that's a selling point; outsiders probably have more access to information about the country than most of its citizens.

Charles you lucky son of a gun you. Congratulations!

If his German was better, "Bradley" could be another baron Munchhausen (cheap arabic version).

I have to say this whole Bradley episode is one of the most satisfying dramas i've ever seen play out on the internet. :)

Bradley needs to look up who Vidkun Quisling was.

Unbelievable.

Am I mistaken, or didn't that little rat bastard concede the point about your screening comments from "ordinary Saudis," after you explained that you had no choice because of their single IP address?

What a gutless worm!

What's pathetic is that he's a second-rate Quisling. As Dr. Evil might say, he's "Quisling-lite."

Congratulations, Charles! You've been attacked by one of the world's foulest propagandists in the world!

I'm sure the Saudis have already added you to their verboten list, especially since so many of the questions we asked are things they want kept quiet.

BTW -- I'm pretty sure I predicted Bradley's attack. Not a tough prediction, and rather sad that it came true.

Oh, another thought: make sure all the security fixes are on your machine. Wouldn't want some Saudi script-kiddy to get lucky and take you off line.

John R. Bradley repeatedly derides critics of Saudi Arabia on the grounds that "none of them have ever been here."

Has he ever noticed the following comment: "Today's Saudi Arabia has held on to its mystique by being incredibly difficult to visit - there's no such thing as a tourist visa in this country"? That's a direct quote from the Lonely Planet web site, with which Bradley should be familiar.

I just wonder if he has ever been to Israel? If he hasn't, then by his own logic he can't criticize it or it's people.

I love this line especially:

"since I am what the posters seem unable to comprehend: A Westerner who lives in Saudi Arabia, has Saudi friends, and genuinely likes the life here."

Sounds like being a houseguest with Marie Antoinette. I hope Mr. Bradley remembers how that one ended.

-- cutting off digits or limbs for property crimes; that creeps me out (Doesn't that make me a bleeding heart?).

Better than ableeding wrist!

Charles,

It is interesting that instead of promoting an American site that promotes the Saudi cause they feel a need to attack an anti site.

You (and the rest of the gang) must be really hurting Bradley and the Saudis.

We have them in retreat. Time to fire another round into their backsides.

"The article I published last Friday in Arab News...revealed Taranto as a right-wing bigot and a dangerously unrestrained Arab-hater who has hijacked The Wall Street Journal’s "Best of the Web" website to promote a private, extreme anti-Arab agenda."

"Revealed" is a somewhat strong word here. I mean, he more made accusations and simply spewed vitriolic angst. But perhaps they have low standards of evidence in Saudi Arabia.

"...when he is not openly excusing atrocious Israeli war crimes."

Since Bradley is so fond of accusation of libel, is he prepared to offer evidence that Israel has committed any war crimes, let alone atrocious ones? Of course, hasn't Bradley nearly come out and said that he consider's Israel's existence to be a war crime?

"When is The Wall Street Journal going to wake up to the fact that Taranto is single-handedly trying to ruin its reputation for providing objective, serious news coverage?"

Wait, so how does Bradley know that Taranto has no help in trying to ruin the reptuation of the WSJ? Oh, wait, he meant "trying to single-handedly ruin..."

"many American readers ... were so disgusted...after reading the article...they have promised to cancel their subscription to the print edition of the WSJ."

Wow. So does Taranto actually believe that there is a non-trivial number of people who read the print version of the WSJ and read the online version of Arab News? Anyway, this really makes me want to buy a subscription to the WSJOnline and send a note to the publishers saying that I did so because of Taranto.

"Many others have promised to register their complaints and outrage about Taranto with the newspaper’s main editor in chief."

I wonder if they will be as eloquent in doing so as Bradley is in this article. If so, I'm sure that the editor will be appropriate moved by their calm, reasoned arguments.

"In his first response to my last article"

Ah, there's nothing like the sound of a well-written sentence.

"Taranto could find absolutely no fault whatsoever with the substance of what I wrote about him"

Again, Mr Bradley seems to be ever so slightly in error. Mr Taranto did not, it is true, rebut any of the claims made by Mr Badley. Instead, he pointed out that "... he neglects to mention that we're ugly and our mother wears army boots. He must be holding his best material in reserve for a future column." If Mr Taranto was not able to cogently respond to Mr Badley's accusations, it does not seem to suspect that it might be because Mr Taranto could not stop laughing long enough to do so.

"When it was brought to the attention of his superiors at The Wall Street Journal that this statement was libelous because factually incorrect (I am indeed the author)"

Actually, if Mr Bradley is able to read and moreover used this ability to read the article he is here discussing, he will discover that Mr Taranto never questioned Mr Bradley's authorship of "The Lonely Planet guide to Saudi Arabia". He merely questioned the existence of "The Lonely Planet guide to Saudi Arabia".

"I suppose Arab News should be grateful for small victories."

A more flippant writer than myself would probably suggest that this is indeed good advice on the grounds that Arab News is not likely to have any other kind of victory.

"...issue a statement calling someone a liar and then have to retract it after admitting he was completely in the wrong..."

Arab News: Now with 50% more spin than the next leading brand.

"Is it not time that ... The Wall Street Journal ... gave him the boot, ... for the general good of higher journalism?"

Since Mr Taranto is a specific person, would this not be for the specific good of higher journalism? Nitpicking, I know, but still: if a person gets confused about the simple things, how are we to trust them on complex issues, like Saudi culture?

"I 'write obituaries for The Associated Press'. Wrong again"

Some would opine that Mr Bradley's current work a very long, complicated obituary for the current Saudi regime, published in installments.

"Are there really no checks and counter-balances anymore in American journalism?"

Wow. He really doesn't seem to realize that checks and counter-balances would be something like another paper publishing extremely pro-palestinian anti-semitic (or at least "anti-zionist", if one grants that there is a difference) opinions. Not that noone would publish anything that contained an actual opinion.

"Blissfully wallowing in ignorance and stupidity"

Wow. I do not think that I have ever seen a better example of the pot calling the can of white paint black.

"Taranto will stop at nothing in his attempt to ridicule and distort the voice of Arabs..." (emphasis mine)

Nothing? Really? Has he really badly exaggerated his credentials? Has he really completely misrepresented what someone else said, repeatedly?

"...he quotes obsessively every possible bit of offensive material about Islam and Arabs he can get his hands on."

Oh, come on now. I think that we all know that he could quote a heck of a lot more offensive material about Islam and Arabs. There is certainly enough of it out there.

"Since publishing a full retraction about his Lonely Planet error..."

Ok, this is the third time that Mr Bradley claimed that Mr Taranto published a full retraction. Why is he so focused on this point (especially given that nothing like what he claims every happened)?

What he said: "It is largely devoted these days to launching personal attacks on me, since I am what the posters seem unable to comprehend: A Westerner who lives in Saudi Arabia, has Saudi friends, and genuinely likes the life here."

What he might have said: "People there enjoy insulting me and ridiculing my 'writing' since I am what they cannot comprehend: A Westerner who has turned himself into the pet dancing bear of the Saudi government because he really enjoys the security his cage provides".

I leave it up to the reader to determine which would have been more accurate.

"The posters appear particularly to loathe everything Saudi Arabian, although none of them have ever been here."

I've been to Saudi Arabia, when I was about 4. As I recall, the illegal Christian school that I attended was nice. Of course, I didn't spend all that long in SA, my parents (especially my mother) hated the place too much to stay.

"Almost needless to say, the hate site itself has oh-so-conveniently blocked all access to those surfing the Net in Saudi Arabia. As I wrote before, Taranto is using the OpinionJournal.com site to promote extreme opinion without reason, accountability or responsibility."

Did noone ever teach mr Bradley that in the english language, a sentence is supposed to follow the one before it in more than just character placement? (unless they are in separate paragraphs, and even then there is supposed to be some sort of connection.)

Oh, and of course he has accountability. It's simply that none of his editors seems to think that he's done anything wrong.

"To what depths will this vile Arab-hater have to sink before the decent-minded readers of The Wall Street Journal finally wake up and, by resurrecting the voice of American reason and decency, insist that this newspaper get rid of the unethical Taranto once and for all?"

This poses a very interesting question: where did Bradley learn that the most effective way to get what you want is to insult those who could give it to you, even when you have no actual power over them?

There does seem to be some unity of principle between Mr Bradley's writing and the Palestinian suicide bombing (and most of the quotes that one hears from various leaders of arabic organizations). That is, the best way to get what you want is through intimidation (regardless of your actual power). Is this an arabic cultural meme that Bradley picked up in the area?

You know, if I were to tour Saudi Arabia, I'd want to see the holy sites. Of course, being a non-Muslim, I'm not allowed to step foot into Mecca. Zionism is Racism!

I know Saudi Arabia is keen on how it is perceived to the outside world, but to use a lunatic like Bradley to be your voice shows how inept the Saudis are in public relations.

Some would opine that Mr Bradley's current work a very long, complicated obituary for the current Saudi regime, published in installments.

Now THAT is perceptive. :)

"Many others have promised to register their complaints and outrage about Taranto with the newspaper’s main editor in chief."

Bring it on, Saudisymps. After losing tons of their friends on 9/11 (WSJ HQ is right next door to the WTC) to ArabIing one of their most-loved reporters, Daniel Pearl, murdered in the most barbaric, tribal savage fashion by Arab terrorists, the only responses you're going to get to any such complaints you may "register" with the Journal is likely a string of profanities followed a week or so later by mysterious invoices for 5-year subscriptions to the WSJ, Barron's, and WSJ.com (which would total well into the four digits) arriving at your homes.

It reminds of the time when the old news show NBC News Overnight got a letter from some anti-Semite complaining about a commentary they'd run a few days earlier. It was addressed to "NBC News Overnight, JEW York" and contained a bunch of Holocaust-denial crap and rants about how they were all just a bunch of commies trying to destroy America. How to respond to this jerk? Well, they chose to respond by reading his entire letter live on-air, and then told him - and everyone else in America who was watching - that he should just turn off his TV because they're really prefer not to have him as a viewer at all.

Any ginned-up Taranto attacks should be dealt with the same way by the WSJ.

Charles, I am tremendously envious. You get all the cool publicity! ;-)

Here's an israeli guy talking about methods to close down web sites he doesn't like. Sort of Saudiesque, I think you would agree.

First Amendment, and all that . . . . our kosher defenders of Free Speech, LOL

Mark

PS Saudi govt censorship, privately insisted upon censorshop, what's the difference ? Somebody fears the free flow of information.

* * * * * *

Fighting the online Intifada

By Andrew Aaron Weisburd July 31, 2002

The current Intifada is global in scope, and fueled by a campaign of incitement that seeks to drive people, wherever they may live, to strike out against Jews. This campaign is being waged over the Internet on dozens of sites that are either directly or indirectly associated with terrorist organizations.

In addition to incitement, some of these sites provide explicit instructions on how to place anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, feature video footage of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel towns, and present identity papers taken off the bodies of Israelis they've killed.
[Izzy has the latest US military gear, as well as nuclear weapons. Much easier to slaughter Palestinians if they are limited to strapping homemade explosives to themselves in desperation, and kept in otherwise virtually unarmed status.]

We don't have to just sit and worry and wait until we become victims ourselves -- we can fight back against the websites of the Intifada!

So, what can we do?

We can shut down the sites, and/or force them to move, and to move again. [An obvious Free Speech Crusader.]

We can make them spend more time defending themselves and less time attacking us. [That would be a perfectly legitimate Palestinian point of view.]

We can deprive them of the legitimacy that comes from having a presence on the Internet.
[Those nukes and tanks aren't enough, we gotta keep 'em off the internet as well. There are an unacceptable number of people worldwide who happen to sympathise with the Palestinian position. Can't have that. Gotta shut 'em down, the izzys must be allowed to portray themselves as victims at all times, unchallenged.]

We can provide them with a pointed reminder that there is no anonymity on the Internet, that we know who they are, we know what they are doing, and we have risen up against them. [Go dude. That's a two way street.]

I say these things having personally taken on a number of these sites over the past month, with the result that some are no longer online, and others have been forced to move their operations to another country. [Free Speech defender, obviously, again . . .]

Among the sites no longer online due to my efforts are those of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Islamic Society of Gaza (an affiliate of Hamas). The primary site of Hamas, [Link: www.palestine-info.info,...] was taken down by its American ISP, but has since found a new home in Australia. [Anti izzy sites must be taken off line. Whatcha scared of sonny ? Some inconvenient truths slipping out ? There are bomb-making sites all over the internet, btw, even the most novice researcher can find them in about a minute. As well as engineering drawings of the Merkava (sp ?) and American tanks, if a person were trying to find soft spots. We were given handbooks pointing out those attackable areas in foreign armor when I was in the army, there are only a couple million of those books out there . . .]

This Hamas site was originally set up by a man named Zayed Khalil, who in addition to his ties to Hamas also served as an Al Qaida operative. In the late 1990s, Khalil purchased Osama bin Laden's satellite telephone and airtime. That phone was used to plan the bombings of the American embassies in Africa. The lesson to be learned from this is that anyone who establishes or maintains such websites may himself be a terrorist. It is the least we can do to make their lives on the Internet a little more difficult. [Yeah, it was either him or the Mossad . . . I'll take a look at your evidence if you read mine . . .]

What were my 'weapons' in taking on these websites?

A web browser

An email account

Politeness

Persistence

And a little knowledge about how the Internet works

In the end it was a simple matter of emailing the Internet Service Provider that hosted the sites. I politely informed them that:

They were hosting the site (don't assume they know).

That the site was associated with a terrorist organization.

That hosting such a site was illegal (the site were hosted in the U.S.)

And I asked them if they thought the site was in compliance with their acceptable use policies.

[This guy is genuinely fearful of someone reading things he doesn't like. Remarkably bolshevik. I don't think I need him screening my internet reading material for me.]

I have posted more information about specific sites and methods used to investigate them here: [Link: www.simokyfed.com...]

[This stridently pro-israel site should be allowed, he says. Only pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab sites should be removed from the web is his argument.]

If you wish to be kept informed of efforts such as these, or have suggestions of either sites to look into or techniques that can be used, you may write care of this address: haganah@simokyfed.com

At the moment, assistance from individuals in Australia would be particularly helpful.

[Saudi internet censorship is bad, but "private" (kosher inspired) censorship is good ? Censorship is censorship, this guy can't make any more an acceptable argument for it than the Saudi govt can.]

[Link: web.israelinsider.com...]

PS [Link: www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com...] is switching IP's due to increased traffic -- we will be back up Saturday hopefully, Monday at the latest . . . MK

PPS We do not fear alternative opinion at our website, we print all rational correspondence without editing. Please feel free to write us and agree or disagree by visiting

www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/letters.htm

We don't have an eMail address finalised since we're in the process of switching providers, but the eMail address will be posted at the top of that page when that is cleared. It will be complete hopefully by Saturday, Monday at the latest. MK

PS The wannabe censor above is from Illinois, but as we all know, jews worldwide are automatically israeli citizens. Hence, the referral to him as an izzy.

Mark

the izzys

There's a new one. You sure you didn't mean the hymies?

Fascinating posts, Mark Konrad.

Where's that Troll-X again?

Interestingly enough Mark Konrad's email address is from "uboot.com" an internet service in Germany, Austria, Switzerland or the UK.

However over here he lies and insists that he's in the U.S.

Mark Konrad (VanguardNN@uboot.com)
USSA, Israel's Largest Overseas Colony
6/15/02

What kind of place is this!? Isn't it "funny" (um, no) that Bradley does not provide any links to Taranto's commentary? Does Bradley believe that the "Best of the Web" site is blocked by Saudi censors or, just as likely, it's the only way Bradley can get away with his inane, false statements?

It's obvious that Bradley has an active imagination and access to a dictionary, even if he doesn't understand all the definitions (living up to Saudi Arabia's 62% literacy rate. I thought it would be useful to list the "big words" Bradley uses in his latest article.

Words Bradley used but has obvious trouble understanding:

reputation
objective
true
retract, retraction
error
libel, libelous
author
victories [small or otherwise]
basic facts
integrity
journalism
army [obviosly clouded by his view of a real Arab "army"]
obituary
Kingdom
right wing
hate-mail oriented
reason
decency, decent-minded
accountablity
responsiblity
hypocrisy

Words Bradley used, but I really believe he understands:

lonely
small
unethical
obituaries [3 princes in a week!?, martyrs, adulterers, infidels, et al]
liar
total obscurity
discredited
nobody
ignorance
fifth rate
stupidity
unable to comprehend
extreme

We're gonna need the Costco-sized package at this rate.

I've been following this whole John R. Bradley thing with great interest since his first article and subsequent postings here.

I felt he deserved some modicum of respect for posting here. Some comments aimed at him were... harsh at first but there were some very pertinent and politely phrased questions asked of him. They were tough but ultimatley fair. The chance to witness a real debate in web time was one I was looking forward to immensely.

It was not to be. The obsfucation, evasion and sheer invention of facts to suit himself and avoid the bigger issue was frustrating but not unexpected - it was all too hard I guess and old habits and tricks are easiest to fall back on. Bradley copped out of answering any questions by retreating under a ridiculous smoke screen

What is even more galling is the misrepresentation of the events. Mr Bradley believes he has bravely waved the flag in an effort to participate in CONSTRUCTIVE debate and he has now retreated to the safety of his own fort to rant forthwith - all safe from the embarassment of any inconvenient reply or fact checking.

Other than to say I fall way off his generalisation of the type of visitor here (I'm not right wing, let alone even American) I would like to comment on his response to the pertinent questions raised which was precisely NONE.

He answered nothing. Do not let any other issue make us forget that. For new readers who may not have followed this from day 1, this fact is hard to see since all the smoke and mirrors started. I would appreciate it if it was possible to post a brief section devoted to the select questions raised of Mr Bradley and his ... answering ... of those said questions.
And also a proper rebuttal of any rubbish claims he has made such as the lack of anti-semitism published by his paper.

Bradley claims he is "...what the posters seem unable to comprehend: A Westerner who lives in Saudi Arabia, has Saudi friends, and genuinely likes the life here". Well, we can't comprehend child molesters either. Some people simply aren't right in the head.

James,

Thank You for taking interest in my previous wanderings, BUT

You might want to take a geography 101 class if it's available. Then ask a friend what "satire" means (As in USSA -- get it -- it's not really a seperate country, it's a takeoff on the USSR . . . Jeezus, talk about having to explain a joke . . .)

I am of German parents, I speak the language, and I maintain an eMail address in Austria. I live in and grew up in Nevada.

You accuse me of being a liar.

That is a very serious charge where I come from, although perhaps not with you, and most Americans, who seem to do it (lie) effortlessly.

However, since you are not talking to just one more of your disrespected punk acquaintances, let me know just what I have lied about.

Mark

This attack on Bradley is just a variant on the straw man argument.

You find a (reasonably) high-profile opponent who lacks grammar and the ability to form a cogent argument and you cast him as a typical example of the group you wish to criticise.

It's too damn easy to pick on the likes of John Bradley - they always come out with the perfectly idiotic lines that make it child's play to demolish them.

It would be perfectly possible for me to find some right-of-Kahane Israeli web-site with calls for "radiation therapy for Ramallah" and then try and cast Israelis as genocidal maniacs, which they obviously are not, but that would not prove anything.

BTW, this site constantly amazes me for the narrowness of the viewpoints tolerated here. I posted a few comments last night pointing out that the children killed in the air-strikes by Israel last week were still tragedies, and should be regarded as such (several posts here clearly did not).

I acknowledged that the strikes were necessary and that Israel had done what it needed to do, but that wasn't enough to stop people calling be a "dumbfuck" and accusing me of preaching "moral equivalence" (whatever that much-abused word means these days). It was so bizzare as to be actually amusing...

Hey LGFers, I hate Arabs too! Lets kill them all, since they're all just primitive sub-humans not worthy of life! Now can we be friends? LOL!

Omar Sharif

Your points are well taken. My posting priveleges have been revoked completely ("You are not allowed to Post Here." That tells you how interested this lot is in hearing alternate opinion) at this site. You and I probably don't agree on much, but I appreciate you recognising the lack of dissent here. And the pretense of "Open Debate" that is portrayed is certainly funny. This lot only wants to agree with each other, the idea of taking a chance on speaking their own minds, or considering an alternate opinion publicly frightens them. This bunch is fearful of VOICING an alternate opinion, and they are laughably ovine in their need to be accepted by the group.

Typical "Free Speaking" (ha ha ha ) american cowards.

Regards

Mark

Omar, you don't seem to quite grasp the concept of 'tolerance'. Disagreement, even lots of it (even accompanied by stupid 'dumbfuck' remarks), isn't 'intolerance'. Why do so many people make this mistake?

Umm, Omar, if you think those Kahane guys would show the official policy of Israelis or at the very least the Israeli government, you might be a bit delusional. Not so with Arab News, unless you plan to argue that in Saudi Arabia, there is freedom of press...?

So, nice try, but I don't see the equivalence.

As for Bradley, he basically begged for it. It's not like Charles here emailed the guy and forced him to come here -- Bradley showed up of his own accord, and spread several false claims which had to be addressed. One of them was asking for a constructive debate, which he certainly got. And if he couldn't stand a few less than diplomatic comments from the spectators, tough.

Oh, and about the dead children in Gaza... I have to say that I'm sad to know they died alongside the Hamas terrorist. Not as sad as I had been for accidental Palestinian deaths in 2000, but too much blood had been spilt by their comrades, with the rest of them dancing on the streets or supporting the terrorists more quietly, in the polls. And that, in itself, is sad.

"My posting privileges have been revoked completely ("You are not allowed to Post Here." That tells you how interested this lot is in hearing alternate opinion) at this site," said Mark Konrad as he, erm, Posted Here.

"This lot only wants to agree with each other, the idea of taking a chance on speaking their own minds, or considering an alternate opinion publicly frightens them."

- can I just say: "You really need to get out into the Blogosphere more." I slagged off 9/10ths of the Blogosphere about 2 weeks for being idiots, lost some readers, appeared to gain an equal number from elsewhere as a result. You remind me of those Warbloggerwatch guys - so busy telling their readers about the OTHER side's hostility to "alternate opinion" they don't actually, erm, present the alternate opinion themselves, and spend all their time bitching.

Hey Steve Chapman,

When I attempt to post a message and I'm notified that "Your posting priveleges are denied," or in so many words, what more can I say ? Somebody didn't want to read my opinion. The proxy I'm using now will probably be blocked shortly.

We don't fear your thoughts, why do you fear mine so much that you would block them ?

Mark
[Link: www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com...]

Mark Konrad
Fear your thoughts? Maybe when we see one of consequence. Maybe it's just with the types of comments/posting style, you are just a walking stereotype. For the name calling and derogatory comments about Israel -you're confused, Izzy was the mascot of the Olympics in Atlanta- about Jews, about Americans and the US government. Where was the good old use of ZOG and other standard conspiracy theory thinking. Omar is right about the overall narrowness of the points of view here, and he often makes good points but it's not like you add anything but space and more of the same old stuff that was spewed back before the time of your parents. And, yes, there is a HUGE difference between a government calling for or shutting down sites on the internet and an individual doing it, which was really one of the only issues in all the bolded drivel.

Individuals shutting down websites, bureaucrats shutting down websites, what is that HUGE difference ?

Mark

Why should ANY website be shut down ?

Mark

Mark -- How nice. "Vanguard News Network".

Here's another bit of convergence, folks. A white supremacist agreeing with a lefty ex-pat Saudi-toady. All that matters is their mutual hatred of Jews.

I note that "Mark Konrad" links to "vanguard news network", one of the many front organizations in the late William Pierce's empire.

How do you feel now that your master is having power lunches with Hitler and Satan, asshole?

Hey Damian

Maybe you just figured this out -- nice goin' -- but I signed my affiliation -- VNN -- every time I signed my name the first fifteen times.
Good of you to pick up on it though (FINALLY).

Yeah, sonny, I was doing my best to keep it a secret, but you caught on . . . Jeezus, you're quick, you gotta be a republican or a grad student . . .

Eureka

Cheers (I guess)

Mark Konrad

www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com

(As I already explained, but I'm positive you didn't get, we're offline until Saturday or Monday. Check back with us then. Drop us a line if you can get your courage up -- we print all correspondence unedited.)

Elwood Blues: Illinois Nazis.

Jake Blues: I hate Illinois Nazis.

Damn right I tried to block you, you Nazi piece of shit. Since you seem to have experience with being blocked, you've found some other ISPs from which to spread your filth.

You are not welcome here. From now on, if you post something I'm going to delete it. I'll leave up the twisted little turds you've already dropped, so people can see why I'm doing it.

Please don't reply to any more of this white supremacist's garbage, people. Your replies won't make sense when his messages are deleted.

Calling Mr. Bradley gay...

Okay... he's anti-semitic, not so good with facts, a propagandist and a liar but why do you have to be perjorative about his sexual orientation? You (and by "you" I mean everyone who found it necessary to joke about him possibly being a homosexual) make being gay a bad thing and something to make fun of.

Maybe you could find some other way to express your displeasure about a person rather then resorting to the homophobic.

The facts speak for themselves about his character... a good place to start might be making use of them like the majority of people in this forum do.

(and no I'm not gay *wink*)

Mike.

When is the Left (or the Far Right, or whatever they are)--folks like Bradley, "Omar Sharif" and Mark Konrad--ever going to learn that "dissent" does not equal telling lies in a BELLICOSE fashion!

No wonder such people need jack-booted thugs to keep this up!
Sig Heil.
And never forget that Mein Kampf translates as "My Jihad" in Arabic!
They don't!

Where did you find Mark Konrad? I thought they all perished in the Fuehrerbunker.

Why don't we stuff him (anyone here a taxidermist?) and send him to the Smithsonian as a Historical Exhibit. There's some open space in the WWII gallery...

Snazzy black uniforms...I guess they turn him on.

Cheers

There is a HUUUUGGGGGGEEEEE difference between an individual denying you access to his website, and a government erecting a cyber wall around their country to prevent their citizens from communicating to the outside world. I've run a half dozen listservs in my time and back in the days of 300 bps modems I set up some BBS systems. Basically they and weblogs are the equivilant of inviting people into a party in your home, some people you ask to leave, some you call the cops on and have halled away.
Also, Censorship is not someone disagreeing with you or a private individual or group refusing to listen to you. Censorship is practiced by the Government, not by individuals or groups. Folks with less than a full understanding of individual freedom think that a public forum is a governmental agency, they aren't in the US. LGF is not a branch or a tool of the US government. I'm not certain if you can say the same about Arab News. Also Opinion Journal is just that, a journal of opinion published by an editorialist of the WSJ. I doubt every editor or writer of the WSJ feels obliged to agree with OJ.

Charles: Congrats on the Mention by the Arab News.

I wrote to "Best of the Web" already this morning. In Bradley's column he states:

“Taranto will stop at nothing in his attempt to ridicule and distort the voice of Arabs, and Westerners who are not pro-Zionist. Robert Fisk, John Pilger and me seem to represent for him at the moment a kind of axis of evil.”

If he was half as good an editor as he thinks he is, he would know that the proper sentence construction here would not be “Robert Fisk, John Pilger and me,” as he wrote, but “Robert Fisk, John Pilger and I”.

Idiot...

I'm sure Mr. Bradley's vanity will bring him back here soon enough. So, just as a note to him;

Mr. Bradley, when can we expect to see forums/comment systems installed on Arabnews?
If you object to Charles blocking Saudi commentators, perhaps you'd like to provide a forum where Saudis can comment and we can take them on head to head? If you feel Charles is supressing your friends' right to criticise, do something about it and set up forums. Of course, you wouldn't be able to block western posters unless being a hypocrite bothers you.....

Dear Charles,

Very interesting series. I am still astounded at how much people everywhere hate the Jews. Thank G-d for the United States.

The interesting question is what the U.S. will do if and when the Saudi kleptocracy falls to a radical Islamic/populist revolt. I would hope we'd just occupy the damn place and run it for the benefit of the world, pumping oil as fast as possible, and selling it to everyone as cheaply as possible. There, now, doesn't that prospect make everyone feel better?

STOP GOD DAMN WRITING EVERYTHING IN BOLD.

We can read it just as well if it is plain, un-emphasized font. You don't add clout to your writing by making it bold; you only add an additional layer of obnoxiousness.

Oh, nevermind. I didn't refresh the page for a long time and Charles already made comments on Mr. I-hate-Jews-a-whole-lot Konrad.

Actually I like it when KKKonrad rights in bold, makes it easier to skip

When is the Arab News going to fire John Bradley?

Am I the only one who finds it a bit ironic that Bradley, while accusing Taranto of one-dimensional reporting and bigotry, has no compunctions whatsoever with using his position as a 'reporter' (a term I use loosely) to serve as a platform to publicly hurl derogatory comments and **personal insults** at someone else? Is this what passes for 'responsible' reporting in the Middle East?

Just a quick background - I was an Arab translator in the Army for 4 years (1991-1995) and I've been to the Middle East many times. The place is not the shimmering oasis that Bradley would have you believe it to be. Egypt was tolerable as they were the most open to Westerners (mainly because they view foreigners as walking money-dispensers). But countries such as Saudi Arabia are not the kind of places that are kind to Westerners. I also find it odd that the US is routinely blasted as being 'out-of-touch' when Saudi is still amputating wrists of pilferers. Or how about that one instance in which a school caught on fire and fifteen girls were killed because the Saudi Religious police kept them from leaving without their abayas. Great country, alright.

One other note - step into the streets of any city in America and shout, "I'm a Muslim!" Then go to Saudi Arabia and step into the streets and shout, "I'm a Christian!" Which country do you think will be more tolerant to the shouter?

Wayne

Its amusing that Bradley sneers at the "right wing" and "white trash" but he publishes stuff from David Duke and his best buddies here still crib from Mein Kampf.

I figure its only going to be a couple of years before Bradley finds himself wandering amongst the slagged ruins of Riyadh wishing for US Marines to save his ass.

Come on Folks! Let us please show some decourm, questioning Mr. Bradley's sexual proclivities really has nothing to do with the matter at hand and it is tasteless and low-brow.

Christopher is correct in his de-constrution of Mr. Bradley's "arguments" and in the fact that James Taranto never appologized nor did he ever have anything to appologize for. James is a nice boy.

Yet speaking as a former journalist and Television News producer, who then quit to get a real job and make his mother happy, I confess that I never worked for such an august news organizations as the Arab News; but instead spent my career confinded to such rinky-dink organaztions as The BBC, ITN, ABC, ZDF, ARD, CBS, SKYNEWS, TF-1 and AP. So perhaps I may be out of my leauge when questioning such a REAL journalist as Mr. Bradley, however, I would like to modestly pose one question for him:

Why is it the the Saudi Sharia Court which yesterday convicted two Chechen terrorists who had hijaked a Russian Airliner, and killed a innocent stewardess, were sentanced to only six and four years in jail and not death? Is not murder against the Koran? Or is it that the death penelty only applies to the murder of muslims?

Chalres, would you be so kind to pass that question on the Lord Haw-Haw, I really would like to hear his answer to this double standard.

Depends on what part of the Koran you read.

One verse says that you shouldn't kill women or old men (i.e. non-combatants).

Then another verse says that any non-Muslim is fair game.

This problem highlights the split-personality of Islam--to be a good Muslim, you need to be a fundamentalist and strictly implement the Koran.

Then if you actually read the Koran, you realize that so many parts are contradictory, what should you implement??

Even fundamentalist Christians manage to ignore the legalization of slavery in the Bible. The Sudanese still engage in slave trade--why not? It's sanctioned by the Koran.

A mass liberalization of the dar al Islam needs to occur to de-fang the Muslim threat to civilization.

Swiftsure,

It's not that she was non-Muslim, just that she was female.

Why is it that people like Omar cannot understand that after he presents his point of view, we still might go "hmm--nope, still don't agree with you"? And why do they then call that "intolerance"? Are they so freakin' delusional that they assume that their viewpoint is 100% correct and to deviate from it makes you "intolerant" and whatever other words they like to add on like racist, right-wing, imperialistic, blah blah blah...

Hey Omar, here's news for you: people are allowed to hold other opinions than yours. Charles lets you post here; how is this intolerant?

What, me worry?

"I could never work for Arab News, or any other publication, if I perceived that it had an anti-Jewish agenda..."

- John Bradley, July 28

Read just one of the rag's regular correspondents to make your mind up, John. As you must know, Nourah Abdul Aziz Al-Khereiji sounds like al-Qaeda on speed.

How's this example of her finery:

Why should we be afraid of a people whom the Holy Qur’an called the murderers of the prophets and the violators of covenants with God? They are a cowardly and mean people who would not fight us except from behind a protective wall. Had we known the fear and confusion in their hearts, despite their huge arsenal of highly destructive weapons, we would have crossed the barrier of fear in our hearts and resorted to fighting hoping for victory with God’s blessing.

http...&

Would you be so kind as to post a copy of your resignation letter here, John?

#121 Come on Folks! Let us please show some decourm, questioning Mr. Bradley's sexual proclivities really has nothing to do with the matter at hand and it is tasteless and low-brow.

Sure it's tasteless to suggest he might be gay but OK to assume he is straight. And who mentioned anything about his sex life? He could be gay and celibate or gay and a sex pig. I don't see any details here about his "proclivities".

If is gay it would be worth mentioning because he defends a society that FRIGGING EXECUTES GAY MEN (but only gay Saudis).

I wanted to briefly add to what Bill K. wrote in #91 , in response to Mr. Konrad’s question about why an individual call for shutting down a site is very different than a government’s. There are several arguments, some US, some general. In the US there are constitutional rights to free speech, but that does not include any statement or action. The famous argument is not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but there are other reasons. That said, there are no shortages of sites with different opinions and lots of dangerous information. As BK noted in 91, however, private sites are a different matter. You may not like the diversity or lack of, and you may not see opinions you like, but a private website is not there to make you happy. As was pointed out, it’s private, and that’s different with who can be excluded and what can be excluded from a public site, or any public area.

Since governments possess the power (in particular a power to use force), as opposed to an individual opinion calling for a certain website to be shut down, states can control thought and action. In palestinian circles, as well as in most arab countries, media and speech are under state control. Also education. State views are promoted (e.g., anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, some anti American and, to some extent, anti non Muslim), contributing to the views of the young and others. Again this is very different than someone in an article calling for censoring certain websites. Ex.: Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian democrat who has been sentenced by the Mubarak government to seven years for, in the words of one news account, “receiving foreign funding without government approval to finance a project aimed at encouraging Egyptians to take part in parliamentary elections.” Some say it was for suggesting Mubarak's son is being groomed to replace him. Or ask the Iranian who was visiting from his home in LA and is now in jail for ten years for teaching dance.

By the way, I am not saying any government is perfect, though some are more open and democratic. I am saying states can use their powers to punish and keep control and that is the huge difference between the state and individual call’s for restriction.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but it was my comment M. Konrad responded to last.

You're dead wrong Charles, Bradley is very intelligent, very devious and very dangereous.

He wrote a brilliant piece of self deception, steeped in insincerity, falsehoods and rank hipocracy.

His article raised a miriad of issues.

I'd hoped to see LGF take Bradley apart point by point, instead after 100 posts all we got is noise, and more noise, with Mark Konrad playing the bongoes in the background in upper case bold text.

If Bradley is reading this he has to be laughing right now.

At one point Konrad became the issue.

Bradley and what he writes in the anti-American, anti-Israel propaganda machine, the Arab News, is the issue.

Any chance of getting back on message folks?

His article raised a miriad of issues.

Not that I've seen. His article dodged a myriad of issues. He dodged a myriad of issues. Why anyone should do more than ridicule him is a mystery to me.

Here's Arab News criticism of the UN report on Jenin. Looks like these guys were far too disappointed by the facts. Perhaps they expected a Bradley-style inquiry into this event with a more predictable outcome the porportions of which would surely make the 'Jeningrad' stunt look like an independent Pali film compared to a Saudi blockbuster.

[Link: www.arabnews.com...]

You're dead wrong Charles, Bradley is very intelligent, very devious and very dangereous.

He wrote a brilliant piece of self deception, steeped in insincerity, falsehoods and rank hipocracy.

Interesting that you say this. I thought it was so laughingly absurd that it could only appeal to the already converted. Then again, perhaps that's because I'm not a fence sitter myself.

I see only self-evident trash, but I fear I'm underestimating him if some could percieve it as brilliant. Can you point out what could be called brilliant in the piece (or any of his pieces) so that I can see?

#106 "Sure it's tasteless to suggest he might be gay but OK to assume he is straight."

No... what is tasteless is to link being gay with being anti-semitic and a liar as if that was one more thing he should be ridiculed for and made fun of about.

There was no heterosexism implied by Swiftsure. Only a recognition that his sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue at hand... and linking the two does Mr. Bradley's detractors a disservice.

James #111

Sorry, restoring sight to the blind is outwith the scope of my ability!

If you can't see what's staring you in the face there's nothing I can do for you!

Bradley has excellent writng skills, his problem is he fell off the tracks somewhere along the line and sold his skills to the most corrupt regime we have seen in modern times.

What a waste!

Congratulations Charles! Couldn't have happened to a nicer infidel!!
Juan has a point, this is going to play right into his 'white trash' hand.
"See, look at all the ignorant Americans....blah blah blah...spewing hate...blah blah blah..."
(And yes, I know that no one here especially cares what he thinks or says.)
For the record, has he answered ANY of the questions posed by Katz? It might be cool to have a list of Katzman's questions and an itemized list of his 'answers'. Documentary proof of his weaseling ways....OK, I mean further documentary proof.
Has anyone asked him how he feels about American support of the Saudi entity?

Robert Crawford #109

Point of clarification.

In his current article Bradley did raise a miriad of issues, most of it is new stuff.

In previous articles he also raised a miriad of issues and expressed, to me anyway, repugnet opinions.

He did the dodging after joining a discussion group at LGF sparked off by a referrence to one of his articles in the WSJ OpinionJournal.

OK.

Sorry, restoring sight to the blind is outwith the scope of my ability!

Blind? That's nice.

Excellent writing skills? He splices together non sequiters and cliches such as "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem". One thought rarely follows another. He'd "bet a billion dollars" etc

I suppose writing ability is a subjective matter. Some people like Hemingway, some people like (Jackie) Collins.

Kyle Z #114

This is more like it.

Bradley should be hunted down in cyberspace, held accountable for what he has written and challenged to answer the questions put to him by Katz and others.

Juan -- you keep asserting that Bradley raised all these issues, yet you won't bother pointing them out.

As far as I can see, when Bradley was asked tough questions, he ducked, ran, and called names. Nothing he says can be taken seriously, especially anything he raises in the context of attacking people. He's a fraud, a liar, a whore, and an apologist for one of the most evil regimes on the planet.

Look at most of his defenders. They prove what's been said about Bradley better than we ever could.

Robert Crawford #118

Robert, his articles speak for themselves.

I'm not about to get serious here and wasting time compiling lists while the majority of posts so far are just noise, like calling Bradley a faggot and all that kind of stuff, it's irrelevant.

All we are doing here is seeing who can come up with the best insult.

Maybe this has become the wrong venue to take this guy on, I don't know. Maybe we need Katz the inquisitor in here!

Though I believe Katz was the one that overwhelmed and drove Bradley away he was nevertheless asking the right questions.

I agree with everyting you say about Bradley, we're saying the same thing, except I've yet to see a defender of his position.

Just to clarify matters for Mr. Bradley and the late, great Konrad . . .

When a government prevents someone from expressing his views, that's censorship.

On the other hand, when a private individual declines to provide a forum for someone else to express his or her views, that's not censorship--that's the private individual exercising his or her own right of free speech.

I'm not about to get serious here and wasting time compiling lists while the majority of posts so far are just noise, like calling Bradley a faggot and all that kind of stuff, it's irrelevant.

Then just say the ad hom stuff is irrelevant and drop it. If you're going to claim Bradley has some good points, and never say what you think they are, then clearly Bradley didn't make any points you think are worth the effort.

FWIW, I think people are making references to sexuality because Bradley's paymasters have a history of killing homosexuals. Just like he was earlier tweaked about being a Mossad agent -- it's a slap at who he chosen to align himself with.

Though I believe Katz was the one that overwhelmed and drove Bradley away he was nevertheless asking the right questions.

After Bradley stated he would only respond to questions from Katz, Katz collected a number of questions from other people, including myself. I spent some time digging for decent questions; I'm sure Damian Penny did, too, and so did Katz.

Once Bradley blew off all that effort, I decided he wasn't worth the effort anymore. Now we can just point to his dishonesty and cowardice to demonstrate what kind of person he is.

I've yet to see a defender of his position.

"Mark Konrad" and "Omar Sharif" ran to Bradley's defense in this very thread.

...

OK, I'm late to this whole drama, so i feel a little bit like the guy walking into dinner late, to find the guests having at each other with salad forks, but I'm going to attempt to wade into the sea of opinion that’s been created, and hopefully add a little something myself.

What I find really fascinating about this whole situation is that it's only cemented one fact in my mind for the 100th time: Enemies of Reason will always stick together, no matter how hypocritical the alliance.

Case in point, we have Heir Konrad, guardian of the forth or fifth Reich, Nazi shitbag extraordinaire, coming to the defense of John Bradley - personal concubine to The House of Saud, and Uber-leftist terrorist apologist.

On the outset, one would think such a pairing impossible, but in the end it makes perfect sense. Both of these guys have abandoned reason long ago, and as such, there can be no telling what sort of bedfellows they may keep – they both Hate Jews, they both hate America, and they are both the whores of dead or dying ideologies, so why not join forces.

And speaking of bedfellows, I want to address the whole “gay” issue of the thread directly. The comments I read, where not, strictly speaking, homophobic, but they did make me sit up and become a little nervous. They pursued a line of thought as to whether or not John Bradley was gay, which is not in itself an offensive thing to do, but since it was done in the context of attacking every aspect of the guy as a writer and a human being, I can only assume that he was being called gay as a negative thing. This sort of makes my skin crawl. From what I’ve seen thus far, I’m about the only gay (or at least openly gay) person who regularly contributes to the LGF comment section, which is fine, but I would hate to think that people around here would be prone to such habits as using “Gay” as an insult. I won’t comment any further on that issue, unless it comes up again.

Lets move on to accusations of LGF blocking Saudi responses to it’s arguments: its bullshit. LGF didn’t block the nation of Saudi Arabia from accessing the site, Saudi Arabia itself did when they forced huge blocks of people to use the same, controlled IP. When civilians are used as human shields in war, it’s the fault of the target of attack when they are killed in the crossfire, not the attacker. So to is a country responsible when it forces everyone to access information through the same gateway, and that gateway must be closed to prevent the abuses of a few users. It’s unfortunate that so many people suffer because one guy chooses to be irresponsible, but those are the breaks - and it’s Saudi Arabia’s fault, not Charles Johnson’s.

This is like an all-star blogger debate-o-thon we’ve got going here. Charles, Robert, Juan, Damian, all the big guns are out in full force to do battle with the ideologues. Keep it up, I’m having a hell of a time.

Sean

Charles,

A suggestion.

Why don't you invite Bradley to debate the middle east issue at LGF and designate say four names to represent LGF.

Also suggest Bradley head up a team of four from the Arab News. Bradley plus three Saudis.

The thread would have only eight posters, others could join a separate thread for comments and letting off steam.

You could moderate the debate.

Could be interesting!

That's a great idea, appointing a few representatives of each side would go a long way to making the debate managable in size and volume. Of course, that's exactly what John Bradely would want to avoid, to easy for him to get beaten that way. None the less, can't hurt to try.

I can only assume that he was being called gay as a negative thing.

I don't think so. I think the speculation was for the same reason we said he was an Israeli agent -- because his paymasters could not tolerate the idea of keeping a gay man around. Saudis execute homosexuals. The only reason they don't execute Jews is because they don't let them into the country -- but they pay the Palestinians to kill Jews.

The other point, IMHO, is that Bradley poses as a man dedicated to freedom, as someone fighting repression and tyranny. Yet he lives in and works for, and defends a horribly repressive state. A state that imprisons people on suspicion of practicing "black magic"! Perhaps if he realized how little evidence it would take to put him on the headsman's block, he would regret his sycophancy.

Yeah, it can be taken too far. It may have been taken too far. But I don't think it was a wrong tactic.

Juan -- Bradley wouldn't do it. No matter what. Why would he come back to a site he smeared in his "paper"?

...since I am what the posters seem unable to comprehend: A Westerner who lives in Saudi Arabia, has Saudi friends, and genuinely likes the life here. The posters appear particularly to loathe everything Saudi Arabian, although none of them have ever been here.

Nice try pinhead. Been there, done that, trashed the T-shirt some time ago.

My opinions of the Saudis and the country of Saudi Arabia are based on first hand, up close enough to smell the b.o. covered by inexpensive knock-off perfume oils available at the Shola Mall. Even if my personal experience hadn't convinced me that the native Saudis were, for the most part, an overly spoilt, falsely arrogant, cowardly yet pompous lot, it would only take a cursory review of the twisted view of the teachings of Mohammad spewed constantly by the wahhabists to form my opinion.

True, there are things to admire about life in Saudi Arabia. Most people are publicly polite (except the drivers, total f^&king maniacs with no concept of the laws of physics), street crime is very low (Riyahd is the only city in the world where I've counted cash publicly in a darkened marketplace at 10pm without giving it a second thought), and 11 and a half months out of the year, you probably won't freeze to death if you screw up and lock yourself out of your house in your underwear (although that stunt does usually entail a mandatory workout running from the Mutahwah if you can't stare them down). Oh, and finding 'desert diamonds' is somewhat enjoyable, but not driving for 3 hours through a martian landscape to reach the search area. The gold souk in downtown Riyahd is kinda cool, but probably only because a majority of the stalls enjoyable to visit are staffed by non-Saudi Arabs. Being out and about as evening prayer call is issued, and the shops and streets empty of almost every living soul, while the echoes of the calls to prayer carry and fade through the eerie calm is quite a moving experience - the first time. After that, it's 'damn, 20 minutes to sit around and wait....'

Otherwise, the place pretty well bites. The climate is horrid, the scenery isn't, and the frustration of dealing with the stupidity of imagined 6th century customs (which somewhat made sense for edge of survival small groups in a hostile environment) in a contemporary metropolitan setting is numbing.

A vast expanse populated by mostly ignorant, scared hypocritical little people, surrounded by expensive devices and infrastructure they scarcely comprehend or accept.

With apologies for breaking Charles' no-profanity request -

I do comprehend you John Bradley, you're a sicophantic, intellectual prostitute in it for the bucks, not actually totally 'walking the walk'. Most likely you're instead guzzling Scotch while you catch uncensored TV beamed to your sat dish off of Sky One, every chance you get behind closed doors.

Fuck you, John Bradley, and the camel you probably sleep with.

By way of disclaimer, yes, the only reason I visited 'The Kingdom' was because I was ordered to do so, several times. Under orders is the only way I'd consider returning, and it would only be a happy visit if while doing so I got to participate in kicking Saddam's evil, twisted butt off the planet. Let no one get the mistaken impression my travels were solely to sample the schwarmas and fruit drinks. Although the pickles and french fries in the schwarmas and bannana/strawberry smoothie combo isn't at all as bad tasting as it sounds, it is a royal pain to have to eat in the van because the women with you can't sit with the group at the tables under the veranda just off the sidewalk. And no, I have no idea who was actually resposible for abducting the large bronze globe from the front of the Al Yammama (yep, that it's name) hotel lobby to its current abode in Oklahoma.

And finally, from first hand knowledge - you are a lying shit John Bradley - point - it is the Saudis and their firewall that have blocked access to Charles by Saudi surfers, not the other way around.

#123 I can only assume that he was being called gay as a negative thing.

Sean, the only people here who treat 'gay' as a slur are the ones who suggest we shouldn't mention the possibility that Bradley (or anyone) might be gay.

I'm gay. I also think any guy who writes prefaces for and edits books called "Henry James and homo-erotic desire" and quotes Jean Genet via Edmund White is at the very least .... suspect.

If he was the editor of Amsterdam Times it wouldn't matter. But he's not. He's an editor of Arab News - Saudi Arabia's First English Daily. If he is gay and he has a get-out-of-Saudi-jail free-card because he is a westerner and lives in one of the "compounds" he is a total c**t for doing the job he does.

Wind Rider, I too, was ordered to SA in August of 1990 and did not leave until May of 1991.

Your descriptions of Saudi life bring back all manner of horribal memories of those times.

But just for some compare and contrast, Mr. Bradley, who lives in Jedda, recently mentioned that to relax he was going to wander the worlds longest corniche, look at abstract statues and stare at the worlds largest fountian.

I live in Moscow. On that very day, while Mr. Bradley was staring at a fountian, I went to an establishment here called "Caesar's Palace".

Here I ate a delicious meal of cream of crawfish soup, had a motzzerella and tomato salad with a very tasty pesto sauce, and a excellent roast saddel of venison which I washed down with some fine old port.

Afterwards, I went to see the lesbian jacuzzi strip show and made the aquatinace of a six foot two inch former female volleyball team captain named Oksana (needless to say, she was not wearing a black head to toe sheet covering her firm, rounded figure). We went home and I drank ice cold stoly vodka out of her belly-button and licked beluga caviar off of her substatial chest for a appitizer/chaser.

Now the question remains: Who of the two of us has more fun for their dollar?

Or for their ruble, tovarich.

Ochin harosho....das vedanya, rodina.

Ceasars in Moscow...cool.

Juan #108, #119 and #124 (and other posters)

You have expressed the same issue that I meant in #71. I couldn't agree more. This whole thread has degenerated somewhat into a mess of claims. No-one really believes John Bradley's claims, no-one is defending the indefensible - that's a given. But let's keep focussed.

Agreed, he is not a brilliant writer but he is a much better debater. Not because he actually debates (LOL) - but because he clouds the issue to the point that it is forgotten. He has sidestepped the issue entirely, raised irrelevant points and deflected all the attention away from the real issue.

But under all the mud and name calling lies the fact remains that he did not answer (appropriately) ANY of the proper questions asked of him - questions he claimed that he wanted to be asked. From a new reader's perspective, this fact is not easy to see when one now has to wade through several articles and hundreds upon hundreds of comments.

It's classic divide and conquer and a brilliant propaganda technique because it's so insidious and so tempting to fall for it. You can see the same tactics employed by creationist debaters or by the NK "negotiators" at Panmunjon in '53.

Any new reader at this website is now confronted with page upon page of non relevant posts to wade through. And all because he has successfully initiated emotional responses in many posters.

Cold, hard remorseless logic is Bradley's bane. Don't let him slip off on a tangential non-issue - keep the talk on topic. Name calling isn't required. The facts, in an accessable format will undo him and any of his supporters who come to this site in order to witness his supposed "persecution".

Simply list the questions and his "answers" or blanks. List his claims, followed by the results of all the judicial fact checking. It' all here - it's just damn hard to see now.

I agree with Robert Crawford #126 and Clive #131.

"Juan -- Bradley wouldn't do it. No matter what. Why would he come back to a site he smeared in his "paper"? "

You could be right but not for that reason.

Taranto smeared him big time at a site with a much larger audience than LGF and he came back for more in his current Arab News article.

Charles got off to a good start when he set up Katz and others to field the questions that Bradley agreed to debate but subsquently dodged and ran away.

Now the opportuninty has probably been lost.

The first couple or three posts set the tone for this thread and it's been downhill ever since.

Notice how Katz is not around anymore.

The name Bradley at LGF has become a forum for profanity, gay bashing and a place where all sorts of freaks can sound off.

"I went to see the lesbian jacuzzi strip show and made the aquatinace of a six foot two inch former female volleyball team captain... We went home and I drank ice cold stoly vodka out of her belly-button..."

'Fuck you, John Bradley, and the camel you probably sleep with."

Then you got the the upper case Jew-baiter Konrad and all that other stuff.

Bradley has to be laughing as he watches this group disintegrate, he won!

But I say it is still worth making an offer to debate, in a controlled environment. Offer to get Katz back on the job.

If he declines it will prove once and for all he really is a coward

Juan,

Bradely, is laughtable and he proved that by running off and lobbing insults at us. Why should we treat him otherwise? It's not as if he would suddenly have a change of heart and seriously debate us. He has already proven that.

He lives in a backward, dull, despotic, quasi-theocray, in the center of a REAL desert. Furthermore, it's guiding moral compass is one of the sillyest religions on earth. What makes him even more mockable is that it's his job try and make the place more appealing and somehow show that his masters have the rudiments of a civilaztion.

Juan, you need to relax a bit son, here, let me give you Oksana's number....

Suppose Bradley is gay. Then it's a disgrace that he's acting as an apologist for the wall-dropping, women-hating, gay-executing Saudi government. If true, that's a legitimate issue of hypocrisy and I wouldn't consider it homophobic in the least to raise it. And I'm the person who has complained most about actual homophobic posts and not-homophobic-but-ranging-close-to-that-territory ones. But really, folks: concluding he's gay on the basis of some book about homo-erotic desire and Henry James. Puh-leeze! Maybe he is gay, but that alone isn't enough to prove it. Nor does living in SF imply that you are necessarily gay. (yes, Jennie T #41, I'm talking about you!)

For example, #15, "I've met queens like him who get a thrill out of living in the most conservative environments and feeling all naughty when they do the gay stuff. It wouldn't bother him if gay Saudis were executed." I don't find that problematic, but I'm mystified by #16, about spanking.

I concur with Sean #123: "The comments I read, were not, strictly speaking, homophobic, but they did make me sit up and become a little nervous."
What makes me nervous is not that someone raised this issue, but that they automatically assumed its likelihood, on flimsy evidence, apparently because it fitted their already (and legitimately) negative view of the man.

I'm no longer a regular poster (I'm trying real hard to stop spending so much time on blogs), but while I was here more regularly, this little free-trading lesbian found numerous postings that were problematic in the same way. Let's not forget the limerick incident, which involved some out-and-out bigotry.

This sort of skirmish into the world of all the old bigotries seems to happen over and over again and it's one of the reasons I've been visiting here less often.

The comments about Saudis executing gays is only partially correct. The three most recently executed were gay, but their execution was because they had raped and killed a child, not for simply being gay.

Saudis do have a hard time dealing with homosexuality because a) it is explicitely forbidden in the Koran (as it is in the OT); and 2), because they have very conflicting views about it. Homosexual sex acts are seen as "not so hot, but we understand" if they take place between mutually consenting youths (say 13-25 y/o). If the acts continue beyond that, and to the exclusion of heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage, then social taboos are being seriously broken.

Older men chicken-hawking youths, however, is seen as a very serious--i.e. capital--crime.

You don't have to agree with the attitude, but you should at least get it straight before you turn up your torch.

#134 I'm no longer a regular poster (I'm trying real hard to stop spending so much time on blogs), but while I was here more regularly, this little free-trading lesbian found numerous postings that were problematic in the same way. Let's not forget the limerick incident, which involved some out-and-out bigotry.

freetles,

If fag baiting disturbs you I don't know why you read message boards on the Internet.

I raised the possibility of Bradley being gay on flimsy evidence and I agree it is flimsy evidence. I'm gay. I don't treat 'gay' as an insult and I don't see any reason not to say, "I think that guy is gay" even if it turns out he is most definitely not gay. I don't randomly assume guys are gay. The gaydar has to twitch a little bit first. If someone could find a picture of Bradley I would scan the photo for all the usual "bright-eyed" telltale signs gay men display (it may be politically correct to say gay men are indistinguishable from straight guys but that's a noble lie).

Go back and read the posts again. The homophobic stuff is coming from well meaning straights who think the gay talk is indecorous (I guess I must be gay white trash). These posts rattled me and I repeated my observations on Bradley’s taste in literature and raised a bitchy eyebrow to news of an overseas “girlfriend” (but only because a gay editor of Arab News would deserve a good fisking). If you know any gay men you must also know we do this kind of thing on autopilot.

I promise never to use the write the wretched word gay ever again. :)

Joe - I do agree with you, and I want to stress once again that I don't think that anyone's been homophobic in this thread, only that I thought it might have been heading that way.

I also agree that to the extent John Bradley works for the Saudi propaganda machine, his homosexuality, or the possibility thereof, is very much revelent to the issue. I think we should talk about it, if there is anything there to talk about.

My problem, I think, came from the fact that a lot of the posts were (rightfully) insulting Bradley for lots of different things when the gay issue was raised. When someone says "oh ya, the guys a fool, a terrible writer, a shill of the Saudi government, and he's probably gay." Well, then, it's kind of hard to see the speculation strictly in terms of objective analysis.

As for the alluded to Limrick incident, I have to say, that was pretty sad. People got so caught up in some really silly humor, the whole thing became like crude lockerroom conversation, and somethings were said that were genuinly pretty detestable. However, it was in the process of my browbeating Laurance Simon over his gay-jokes that I found his website, which is funny as hell. So it was sort of a mixed blessing.

To Recap: If John Bradley is gay, that makes him an even bigger sellout hypocritical tool then before. To wonder about this is both fair and relevent, but to speculate purly because you want another insult is not. Can't we just focus on all the other ways the guy is a piece of shit? We could fill ten message boards with that discussion.

Sean

#137 Can't we just focus on all the other ways the guy is a piece of shit? We could fill ten message boards with that discussion.

I agree. If he shows up again I'd like to ask him why there are no churches in Saudi Arabia. He won't be back though. We will have to settle for his usual screeds in Arab News.

BTW, I found out he does live in a Saudi district of Jeddah and he blames the self-segregation of westerners on white trash racism (there's a surprise!). He seems to be the only non-trashy white man in SA.

[Link: www.carebridge.org...]

I think it's a mistake to take Bradley as embematic of Saudi hireling flcacks-- there are dozens and dozens of ex-US government employees and former US elected officials in the employ of the Saudi entity, and the vast majority of them are much smoother than Bradley.

Bradley may, on the other hand, be typical of the sort of hireling flacks the Saudis may be able to get to live in the Saudi entity.

Joe - #136 "If fag baiting disturbs you I don't know why you read message boards on the Internet."

Its funny that you say that, because sometimes I wonder why I do read message boards on the internet. It seems like the vast majority of posters are indeed idiots looking to get a rise out of someone by saying something offensive. Not, of course, the LGF boards, but many others. The internet is a sad, sad place sometimes. Just saying.

Joe, I didn't mean you, I numbered the posts I was referring to. (-: And yes, I know a lot of gay men. Almost impossible for a lesbian not to do so, although I know that some gay men go around blissfully unconnected with their female compatriots. Fag-baiting doesn't disturb me -- I'm pretty inured to it nowadays -- it just confirms my observation that some warbloggers aren't the progressive sweetness-and-light types that one might hope for, but rather the same old conservative/reactionary prejudices with a new group to loath. Honestly there are some folks out there that are indistinguishable from the vanguard pieces of shit, other than that they hate Islamofascist Arabs instead of Jews, who they love.

And yeah, what Sean said. You go, girlfriend (-:

Oops, should have added the "(unless she lives on one of those separatist communes and thus wouldn't be posting here)" disclaimer to "Almost impossible for a lesbian not to do so [know gay men]".

Freetles - the thing about the net (and the blogging community in general) is that there's an element of natural selection involved. To survive as a blog, you have to recieve links, and to do that, people have to agree with arguments. The net result is that stupid people will always go away eventually. I'm sure on day one, there were loads of warbloggers of every mindset - including staunch, prejudiced conservatives - however, anyone dumb enough to be prejudiced in such a way is most likely to be wrong on a lot of things, and will probably not last long online. You're not going to find many really homophobic warbloggers - not because people with that collection of opinions don't exist, but because they will be ignored, at least around here.

---

There are lesbian seperatist communities now? Wow, I can only imagine what my straight friends would do to sneak into one of those places for a few minutes.

#142 Oops, should have added the "(unless she lives on one of those separatist communes and thus wouldn't be posting here)"

freetles, you are the first lesbian I've encountered who wasn't thinking of heading off to occupied Palestine to throw red paint at fascist Israeli soldiers. :)

#143 You're not going to find many really homophobic warbloggers - not because people with that collection of opinions don't exist, but because they will be ignored, at least around here.

I suspect two really big guns have restrained the homophobia - Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds. Sullivan for obvious reasons and Reynolds because he's a big hearted love bunny. Without them I think the normal right-of-centre social values would predominate. The warbloggers main target is psycho-Islamism so I would read war blogs even if they all had 'defence of marriage' banners. I do sneak back to my LGBT buddies for 'progressive' comfort breaks but their idiotarian views on Israel make it a short stay.

Lets not for forget that when we say "right of center" most of the people were talking about arn't conservatives, but rather libertairians, and are therefor going to be pretty "live and let live" about things.

Again, it would seem odd that the majority of the big time bloggers would be in such a reletive minorty politically, not quite right or left, with sometimes vague positions on things. I guess it's just more proof that being on the extreme end of any ideology will never work, and truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Joe - same here. I don't know how the militant lesbians put up with me.

Again, it would seem odd that the majority of the big time bloggers would be in such a reletive minorty politically, not quite right or left

Are you so sure the people you're talking about are in a relative minority? Or are they just less noisy (during normal times) than the stereotypical Chomskyite loon on the one hand, or the stereotypical gay-hating loon on the other?

I mean, I think a majority of people have common sense.

Jeanne - To be honest, I always thought common sense was poorly named.

No, your right, most people are not extremists, but when it comes to political debate, most of those in the media (be they tv pundits, editorialists, writers, or what have you) would call themselves republicans or democrats, left or right. Self descried libertarians are, in public debate, less common then self described liberals or conservatives.

However, in the bloggosphere, as big an intellectual meritocracy as there ever was, they dominate. And I think the reason they do so is simply that by and large, middle-groud libertarians are right about things, and more traditional liberals and conservatives are wrong. A simplistic analysis maybe, but there you have it.