Done. I also mentioned that the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today cites you pretty often.

From MSNBC’s Weblog Central

Little Green Footballs A popular but controversial Warblog focusing on militant Islam and terrorism. Is this news or hate?

Well, it’s neither one of those things. It’s an open forum for discussion of current events. Are these people stupid or what?

Charles, by comparison your web makes MSNBC's look like incoherent ramblings. No wonder their ratings are so low.

Seems that Anil is just another psuedo-intellectual blow hard. Hardly worth....this........comment....

FWIW, I never emailed MSNBC, and I don't think LGF is a hate site. I think that there are some truly misguided people here who are prone to xenophobic statements, and that your stance on sites like clearguidance.org shows that, to be consistent, you'd have to either distance yourself from them or delete their statements.

I'm not the only one who thinks so. Though you've proudly labelled him an Anti-Idiotarian, Nick Denton agrees. I suppose you'll have to delete him off your list, too.

Or else you can do what I suggested a few months ago, and make it clear that you're only referring to some elements of Islamic culture. I don't disagree that contemporary Islamic theocracies are fundamentally (ha! a pun!) flawed. And if your site had no comments, it might do justice to discrediting them. But the commenters betray your points with their xenophia and virulence. I think a lot of the issues you raise are important and deserve a platform that's not tainted by bias.

To be more pointed about it, one of my biggest detractors here is a zulubaby, who's apparently a blonde-haired white woman from south africa with a painful misunderstanding of what the word "racism" means. My family was losing friends and acquaintances to extremist Islamist violence in India long before you started reporting on these issues, Charles. I'm not soft on the evil that you try to speak to. Don't resort to generalizations and name calling, like vilifying sites like Metafilter, which was calling out the Taliban back when you were still talking about dangling P tags.

All I'm asking is that you do justice to the topics you discuss, so that the legitimate points you raise can become part of the public discourse. Resorting to insular buzzwords and playing to your cloistered audience just marginalizes the valid issues you raise.

Though the site runs up but largely not over the line, the comments section is all too often vile and I think that is what a lot of folks are really critical of.

I'm Boycotting MSNBC since they fired Alan Keyes and so is almost 80,000 others:

Boycotters of MSNBC & their Advertisers: 77,442

working on it Charles.

A copy of what I sent:

Thanks for adding Little Green Footballs to your list! I began blogging there in the last month or so of the summer. From what I have seen of LGFI believe that it has mostly been attacked by people who then repeat well-worn anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic points (i.e. 'Jews control the media', 'Israel drinks the blood of Palestinians', 'The Jews of Europe aren'y REALLY the Biblical jews, just Khazars- so they don't have the RIGHT to be in Israel' etc). LGF is an open forum, so anyone who wishes to do so may post whatever they think of. This does lead to unfortunate comments by some of the users, but there is a group of LGFers who defend the points and fight these Trolls with logic. One of the more successful series (though quite long at 8 days/47 posts/ 32 pages' worth of text) just ended: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] . Much of the topic is based on a scathing letter that was sent to LGF because we'd found and announced that An-Najah University in the Territories was refering to several (smaller) Western Universities as affiliates, and there was apparently some problem with this (the location of the debate was at the end of the original post, the 1st follow-up was located here: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

While LGF has been accused of maintaining a theme of hateful writing by Anil, I believe that it was in his argument for this point that he chose 5 comments, out of any context, from 4 different boards, with 30-100 comments in each. He dismissed the fact that someone's words might be the result of a response to a suicide bombing or to the execution of an Arab citizen of the W. Bank as a 'collaborator' by Hamas, without trial and based only on the word of a single person, if even that much. While Anil may be right that some posters tend to be overly-encouraging of violence, you will see that the majority, including Charles himself, try to avoid this attitude. In fact, Anil's first attack, if I remember it correctly, came shortly after it became known how popular LGF had become (when LGF appeared on the top 10 searched items for Lycos).

There is controversy, but we fight what we see as hateful and, despite the claims otherwise, we DO post positive news about the ME region, but it is so scarce that it is overwhelmed by the bad.

We helped bring light to the actions and sayings of ClearGuidance.com (conveniently catalogued here: [Link: clearguidance.blogspot.com...] as well as the vitriolic rhetoric of the Arab worlds' Imams ( A prime example here: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] current events that are barely mentioned by the mainstream media (i.e. The incident at the University of Concordia in Canada, where several dozen pro-Palesetinian protestors physically and verbally abused several hundred people, who were trying to listen to a talk by Bibi Netanyahu. The protestors ended up breaking many windows and running through the halls of Concordia, forcing the speech to be cancelled. This was not mentioned once in any major American Newspaper or in any of the major cable news networks), various other speeches by Arab leaders and VIPs that tend to go unmentioned by the mainstream press (such as the open announcements made by Hamas terrorists praising the boobytrapping of houses in Jenin, which then needed to be destroyed by bulldozers or were scraped by a bulldozer, causing the charges to explode and destroy the house- a major source of the well-known destruction of parts of Jenin's 40-year-old 'refugee camp').

I come to you to say that while some may claim that there is overwhelming 'racist bigotry, lies, and distortions' the truth is that it is very often so that it is THEY who harbor these feelings and show these traits.

Please let people know the truth about LGF and don't allow Anil's spiteful and jealous claims to overcome the great occurance that is Charles' Little Green Footballs.

Thank you

I think it a proper defense.
-Ratz

spiteful and jealous? anti-semitic? give me one bit of evidence that either of those claims applies to me. it's interesting that you can draw those conclusions about me even though you don't know my stance on any of the events that are described here.

at 8:12 I made this comment in another thread:

I hope it never comes to the point where Jews indiscriminately kill Arabs.
Thank G-d that the Jews can discriminate between good and evil when they have to kill.

at 8:20 this thread is posted and Anil is getting mileage.

I think that there are some truly misguided people here who are prone to xenophobic statements, and that your stance on sites like clearguidance.org shows that, to be consistent, you'd have to either distance yourself from them or delete their statements.

and recommending censorship.

Plenty of people are criticized here for making racist comments.
-------
As for distancing from statements of hate... We are all STILL waiting for an Arab community to do that.

Anil (#4)

To be more pointed about it, one of my biggest detractors here is a zulubaby, who's apparently a blonde-haired white woman from south africa with a painful misunderstanding of what the word "racism" means.

It is precisely because of where I grew up that makes me so painfully aware of what real racism is. I lived through Apartheid South Africa, and that is why I have an issue with you picking out a few comments on this site, and using that to tar all of us that post here with the same brush. If you had seen and heard and experienced what I have, you would understand what racism is, and how breathtakingly hurtful, evil, and demeening it really is. That is why I get furious when you include all the posters here as racist. That would include me, and I take huge umbrage to that. Now you're backing away from your original assertion that LGF is a hate site.

I would appreciate it if, for once, you didn't post and leave. And if you could refrain from getting belligerent and nasty, so that things can stay civil between us, I would greatly appreciate that too.

And if your site had no comments, it might do justice to discrediting them. But the commenters betray your points with their xenophia and virulence. I think a lot of the issues you raise are important and deserve a platform that's not tainted by bias.

Yeah, sure. Just substitute "differences of opinion" for the word "bias" in Anil's text above and I think that you'll see just what this is all about.

I especially like the "no comments" part. Hush everyone who reads LGF! Anil doesn't like it!

The people who read this site know that it is none of the things that it has been described as. They also know that the occasional fruit-bat flys through the window in the night, then departs again. We've all seen them come in all shapes and sizes. Fortunately, most of us can think for ourselves.

Resorting to insular buzzwords and playing to your cloistered audience just marginalizes the valid issues you raise.

Please. A site coins a term that ranges from mildly- to highly appropriate and begins to see usage and suddenly it's "insular" and we're all "cloistered."

Ratz (#7)

That's a beauty. Well done.

Hello everyone - I'm an Australian reader of the London Spectator, who found my way here because of Mark Steyn's recommendation in its an article there. I've been very impressed with it and entertained also - though I am now reeling from Anils allegation that zulubaby, on whom I was rapidly developing a serious crush, is white! Anyway, the MSNBC "Best of Blog" thing prompted me to send them the following a few minutes ago -

"
If "Islam is a religion of peace", then Little Green Footballs probably is "too hateful for the Best of Blogs list." But I would recommend, before making up their minds, that readers check out LGF's regular summary of the belligerent and fanatical "sermons" of muslim clerics, delivered from Grand Mosques across the Middle East every Friday. The sooner the scope and nature of the threat of Militant Islam to my community, and probably yours, is understood the better, and LGF is helping to speed this process. Kudos for putting it up on your site, and for refusing to take it down when pressured.
"

My intention's never to post and leave, it's just a reality of the limited time we all have, I can't devote as much time to the conversation here as probably you'd prefer.

I said on the very first thread I commented on here that I don't think this is a hate site. And I never called for the total removal of comments, I said that these issues about LGF's tone wouldn't come up if the comments weren't present.

As for deletion of comments as an option, it's not censorship, as this is a private site. And it's totally in keeping with the suggestions made for clearguidance.org.

The larger point is that there are extremists among you, and that you all seem to be of the mind that that's acceptable, while other groups must constantly be vigilant of the virulent extremists in their midst. I am pointing out that both groups are equally dangerous to our safety and future, and must be treated the same.

How incredibly petty to devote an entire article to bashing a particular site without actually naming it. Not that I don't endorse a wide range of opinion over the wonder communication center known as the internet, but I would think sites could disagree without bashing each other over the head with a verbal 2x4. Don't address grievances, label it, then screem when the opposition labels you.

Just another prime example of leftist intolerance towards any opinion that veers away from the multi-culti moral relativism. Thank God we have the first amendment, so EU loving, "hate-speech" censors can't take hold in the US.

God bless America, the most unique, diversified, and free nation in the world.

My email to MSNBC

I read LGF nearly every day and there are links to many articles I can't find elsewhere on the war on terror. Since our fight in this war is primarily against Islamists, many of the links and discussions focus on the role of Islamism in this war. The people compalining about the site are likely those upset that the truth is coming out about the consistent message of anti-american hate from clerics throught the muslim world as well as the never-ending acts of terror spawned by Islamist hate. Many of the readers at LGF (based on the comments I've read) are looking for evidence of Islamic leaders distancing themselves from the extreme views and actions of the Islamist clerics and their followers.

Ben P (#13)

I've been very impressed with it and entertained also - though I am now reeling from Anils allegation that zulubaby, on whom I was rapidly developing a serious crush, is white!

That is the best laugh I've had all week! Sorry honey, but Anil is right. I am white. Please don't let that stand in the way though ;-)

Brad #16

Well said!

A racist is someone who happens to be winning an argument against a liberal-leftist.

Done. Anyone who thinks Charles, or virtually any of the posters to this blog, is racist, doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

This site doesn't judge anyone on the basis of ethnicity, which is what's required to be racist. Nor does it even judge people on the basis of being Muslim (and after all, Muslims can be of any race). It merely objects to those who use Islam as an ideological basis for killing as many non-believers as possible.

If you think that's racist, you've had a few to many whacks with the stupid stick.

Anil #8:

Hate is an emotion.

All creatures have elicitable latent emotions, and either express or constrain same.

You are capable of hate.

I hate the alleged humans who placed hundreds of thousands of people in perpetual slavery, in order to build the ancient pyramids.
I hate the ersatz "prophet" Mohammed Manaf, for his equivalent concoction of a motivating structure for MURDER, that is currently eliciting genocidal hatred.

If you have an emotional reaction to the following slave-scheme, please inform:

[Link: www.flex.com...]

Here's a copy of what I sent. I signed my real name & city/state, too!:

Editor:

In response to the e-mails you've received, claiming that littlegreenfootballs is anti-Islam, I'd like to say that, as a regular contributor to lgf, I think that accusation is false. Although there are a few regulars who are "out there," most aren't and try to be fair. Most lgf regulars do make a distinction between Islam and Islamic terrorism. I suspect that the people who criticize lgf for supposed anti-Islamic slant are overreacting to the extremism of a small minority. Perhaps the people who don't like lgf don't like it because so many of the contributors are Jewish and/or pro-Israel. Is that still okay, or is being Jewish/pro-Israel bad in itself, and a good reason for withdrawing your recommendation of lgf?

Yeah, real busy Anil.

With all that anil time you give to the 'boys' right.. ?

Oh, and so solly to hear you 'buds' have gone the Right way who you gonna give anil to now?

Gays Make Right Turn

LGF certainly draws its share of commentors whose hearts may be in the right place, but who use the site to vent their frustrations - using colorful, not very politically correct, language - at Islamofascism, liberals, Bush waffling, Colin Powell, or whatever. But more dispassionate visitors eventually rebut them or make them tone it down.

LGF is a great example of how a well-designed comment section can attract intelligent people who keep the discussion on a more thoughtful plane than you usually see at a public site.

Bill's visitors are much more heartless than LGF's:
[Link: www.dailypundit.com...]

Anil, as to your comments about extremists being on this site, have you ever bothered to wander into a yahoo forum?

I've found the vast majority of the posters on this site are well read and knowledgeable on a large variety of topics. The ones who aren't are quickly ignored and/or marginalized.

Also, you seem to think this site is a place for unbiased discourse. I don't think it is, at least I haven't found the disclaimer that says LGF doesn't have a bias. If it does, my apologies to LGF.

Many of the readers at LGF (based on the comments I've read) are looking for evidence of Islamic leaders distancing themselves from the extreme views and actions of the Islamist clerics and their followers.

That's a very good point. I wan't to believe Islam has a place in modern society, and I look at places like Turkey as evidence that it is possible. However, populor support for Sharia law in many Islamic nations, along with a rather negative experience in talking with muslims over the web has left me dissenchanted with the possibility of long-term peace with Islamic nations. I know the latter isn't fair--I am talking to a selective gorup of people--but you can only undergo so much verbal abuse from extremists who call you a bitch, pig, sow, and nazi before you lose faith. The WTC, nightclub bombings, destruction of religious sites, suicide attacks against civilians, slavery in the Sudan, pursecution of Christians in the Philipines and Indonesia, and religous leaders calling for the desctruction of Israel and America each and every Friday all have one thing in common.

Well I probably just gave the Anilites more to click their tongues at, but I frankly don't care. I didn't lie or distort, so if any one of them want to take me on the facts, come here and debate or e-mail me privatly. My e-mail's in my name.

"one of my biggest detractors here is a zulubaby, who's apparently a blonde-haired white woman from south africa with a painful misunderstanding of what the word "racism" means."

anil, what is THIS but a not-so-subtle suggestion that zulu is but a colonial oppressor whose opinion best be discounted? i mean, c'mon, if any of us had mentioned your ethnic heritage in ANY way, you would've blown a gasket.

are there scumbag racists that post here? yeah, of course, it's called cyberspace -- my guess is they get 'em over at the "naked fucking chef" site. but here they are always shouted down -- or told to calm down -- or most often, engaged and meticulously reasoned with.

anil, your complaints about the "lingo" here are just so much nanny-nanny-neener-neener. if you have real POINTS about today's issues -- with facts to back up -- stick around and we'll talk.

BTW, i've mailed my views to MSNBC.

And its bad to be anti-islam because.... why now?

Their a religion of peace is that it?

Misunderstood?

Its all the Jews fault, again?

9.11 was a act of 'anger' that we have to understand is that it?

If Jerry Falwell had described Quakerism as a violent religion, would Quakers have rioted? Would Quaker preachers have called for his death?

Falwell Was Right and the sooner you figure that out (start believing what they say) the sooner the world will be safer for everyone.

Diane L (#22)

You're wrong about one thing only. Most of the posters here are in fact not Jewish.

Pro-Israel, yes, but not necessarily Jewish.

We live in difficult times. Some people throw around terms like:

Bigot
Racist
Homophobe
Zionist
Anti-Semite
Xeno-phobe

These terms elicit emotional and sometimes irrational responses from otherwise rational people. Some of the comments push the envelope. Very few cross over into true venomous, irrattional, hatred. For instance the up coming war of Islam vs the rest of the world may result in casualties on the order of 600,000,000 and up if cooler heads don't come on line within the muslim communities. The non-muslim communities are quite tired of hearing of the latest mosque approved act of terrorism by muslims against everyone else.

Anil (#14)

The larger point is that there are extremists among you, and that you all seem to be of the mind that that's acceptable, while other groups must constantly be vigilant of the virulent extremists in their midst.

Show me any one large group of people without extremists. I know you're about to go, "Uh huh, that's exactly what I mean about the Muslims", but there is, of course, a difference. For one thing, there are no posters here who are hell-bent on murdering every Muslim on earth. The Islamic faith has been hijacked by the extremists. Most of us here would like to hear from Muslims opposed to the extremists among them, but that happens on an alarmingly infrequent basis. That is not Charles' fault, nor any of the posters here. We are entitled to criticize those that seek to destroy us. This is not a hate site, nor is it a propaganda site. Charles merely exposes the truth, and you seem to hold him responsible for the fact that the truth is very often ugly.

I am pointing out that both groups are equally dangerous to our safety and future, and must be treated the same.

It is laughable that you would consider LGF dangerous. For heaven's sake Anil! And you can't possibly be serious in your attempt to put LGF on par with a real hate site like Clear Guidance. Even you must realize how ridiculous that it. As far as I know, no-one here has ever e-mailed the webmaster of Clear Guidance, insisting they delete comments. On the contrary.

"In the year since the bloodiest attack on U.S. soil, the familiar bastions of the Left have been awash with anti-Americanism."

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

12,000 Professors sign anti-war petition

They didn't do that during Vietnam I wonder why? There's no political agenda on Campuses these days now is there?

Campus Watch: Monitoring Middle East Studies on Campus.

dan truly (#27)

"one of my biggest detractors here is a zulubaby, who's apparently a blonde-haired white woman from south africa with a painful misunderstanding of what the word "racism" means."

anil, what is THIS but a not-so-subtle suggestion that zulu is but a colonial oppressor whose opinion best be discounted? i mean, c'mon, if any of us had mentioned your ethnic heritage in ANY way, you would've blown a gasket.

I am making a concerted effort to remain calm with Anil, so you have no idea how much I greatly appreciate your saying that.

Thank you.

Rather than the "LGF Crusade," can we call it "Operation Infinite Justice"?

I hear that name's not taken...

Oh yeah, Anil, as practice, don't make statements like "i know foo is so, but i'll disregard foo anyway." It paints you as foolish and irrational individual.

This is evidenced by your foolish critique of the slang on this site. English is a living language, but not when these people use it. This is not a site for academic debate, i.e., using rigorous definitions, grammar, and quotes. If it were, I would have probably been banned my first post.

In addition, using your logic and arguments about language, every cultural sub-group should give up words that define and characterize them as different. Even if they use the word in their native environment. Valley girls can't use "like," like you know. Native Americans can't use words like enit, enit, etc.

I'm sorry, but that type of thinking and logic is one of my major pet peeves.

Just sent MSNBC my two cents worth! Told them that the scariest things I had read on LGF had been the quotes from ClearGuidance, the imans in the mosques of the Middle East, quotes from the Hamas webssite, etc.

FWIW, I never emailed MSNBC

Maybe not, but it's an interesting coincidence that they received all that negative e-mail right after you chose to blast LGF, apropos nothing new, just the day before:

Case in point: Little Green Footballs. No sooner had LGF won a spot on Weblog Central’s Best of Blog list than e-mails of objection began to arrive.

Former Best of Blogs blogger Anil Dash is one of LGF’s most vocal detractors and has made many critical posts in his own blog as well as in the LGF comments section.

Nothing like using someone else's success to raise your own standing. Anil, your eyes are glowing bright, venomous green.

Those of us in the majority, who are of all political stripes, correctly see stridency and cliquish, back-slapping, jargon-laden repetitious rantings as neither productive nor useful.

Quick culling of Anil's comment section:

Thanks, Anil. That needed to be said.
Posted by: Keith A on October 17, 2002

Nice rant, Anil, and timely as well.
Posted by: Rafe on October 17, 2002 12:59 PM

Wow. Thank you for saying that. And saying it so well.
Posted by: starmama

Mr. Dash, sir, you rock. thanks for putting this out there. i know it wasn't easy.
Posted by: kd on October 18, 2002 04:32 AM

littlegreenfootballs. i never understood why it's so awesome. just because someone writes political opinions on a weblog with a nifty design, we all need to comment on it to popularize drivel we don't agree with.
while we're at it lets go read philosophical opinions at [Link: www.ourcross.org,...] now there's a bunch of retards if i ever saw em!
Posted by: rajan on October 18

Great piece, Anil.
Posted by: Mike

MSNBC has picked up this thread.
Posted by: Neale on October 20, 2002 09:48

Yeah, no backslapping or jargon here. And, as far as cliquishness, I'm guessing Anil is just feeling, well, left out, poor baby.

#34

Hah!

Perhaps Blog War I
Blogtifada
Blog-Keeping Mission
Police Action in the People Republic of Blogsphere
The Blogo-Prussian War
Operation BlogStorm

Ben P (#13)
We have the coolest women in the world here with zulubaby, mommydoc, Donna V., and others.

Ratz (#7)
Wonderful email/post. Thanks. Please disregard my upcoming coments on the political left, I think you know who I'm writing about.

...have you looked at the content and the editorial line, and more importantly, at the anti-muslim anti-left anti-prettymucheverythingnotgeorgewbush hate that gets its way on that weblog ?

So, anti-left is now in the same category as anti-muslim (which means religious intolerance and/or racism)? I guess, considering the (low) respect that the left has for free speech I should not be suprised at this.

Anil -
I took a look at your blog. Ok, you did not write the words "LGF is a hate site", but that is clearly the intent of your post. You fool no one.

And, if being anti-left is evil, then count me in. I think that the free speech hating, America hating, Judenhass practicing, Saddam loving, moral equivalence drawing left is beneath despicable.

This does not include those clear thinkers like Ratz (above) who are free of these faults. However, left politics as practiced on college campuses all over North America and throughout Europe is very much this way.

Someone posted (in another thread) that the left shifts its view to remain anti-American. I think that is true. Formerly anti-racist, pro free speech, pro-Israel, etc., the left is now racist (against J-E-W-S and white folk), anti free speech, etc. All well documented here at LGF.

And, since Anil won't like it, well documented by themselves. I loved hearing Noam (it's all America's fault) Chomsky say on Alternative Radio on PBS, "Saddam is an evil monster but...". I have said for the past few months now, when others have been dismayed at what they've read, that I was glad to see it. As often as not, the left gleefully reveals its own moral and intellectual bankrupcy. I love that.

I will stick to my point in my earlier rant, the elite, university, European left is evil.

So, Anil, is that hate speech?

i mentioned zulu's ethnicity as evidence that she's seen the negativity of racism firsthand, not as a veiled slam against her. she and i have no problem going at it, i'm rather appreciating her levelheadedness towards me, so no need to go trolling for a fight between us.

Now then, would anyone like to distance themselves from GI JOE's homophobia? Or is my asking people to do justice to their viewpoints more offensive than Joe's statements?

For one thing, there are no posters here who are hell-bent on murdering every Muslim on earth.
I disagree, based on comments I've read here. I also think there are posters here who would like to deprive Americans of their rights, simply because they are muslim, arab, or look like they might be one or the other. I don't think the fourth amendment is any less important than the second, ESR be damned.

The Islamic faith has been hijacked by the extremists.
I knew we agreed on more than we disagreed on. I'm saying that LGF has been hijacked by the extremists, too. You all probably don't believe me, but I'm actually politically very much of a centrist. (That's why your attacks against the left don't bother me much; It doesn't include me.) I see lots of valid points made about an Islamist evil that I was complaining about long before it was fashionable. But I hate to see the important points labelled as the views of extremists who tolerate xenophobia and homophobia, because it makes the points seem invalid, when it's merely the actions of some of those arguing the points that are invalid.

I find it truly fascinating that there's a community here who thinks that anti-semitism is a huge presence in the left (sure, it exists among extremists, but they're hardly typical) but ignores the American right, despite its continued reverence for such noted lights of anti-semitism as Richard Nixon or Henry Ford.

And, if being anti-left is evil, then count me in. I think that the free speech hating, America hating, Judenhass practicing, Saddam loving, moral equivalence drawing left is beneath despicable.

What percentage of the modern left do you think falls under that category? And why are you so eager to label half of America under that banner? Do you think there could be people who identify as liberal or left that don't fall under that description? Are there people who disagree about the priorities of our government who aren't anti-American?

Anil, Richard Nixon and Henry Ford are dead.

GI JOE (#23)

Great link. That article is spot on!

Anil, come on. Quit being coy. That we "don't know [your] stance on any of the events that are described here" is exactly the point. You show up, scream RACISM, and disappear--as zulubaby keeps pointing out. But where do you stand? What is your definition of racism? Many of us at LGF are obviously revolted by a lot of what we see in the Muslim world . . . but is that racism? Maybe you could clarify your position a little bit by telling us where you AGREE with, say, someone like zulubaby--who's opinions you seem to follow closely, and who seems to be pretty representative of most of the people who post comments on LGF. Or how about this: When you want answers about Islamic terrorism, who do you read (and believe and trust): John Pilger and Robert Fisk, or Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson? A simple answer to that simple question would go a long way toward helping LGF readers understand the true nature of your accusations. You want LGF to be more introspective. How about some introspection from you?

Sorry Anil,
I had not seen your comment before mine was sent, if the 'jealous and spiteful comments' were not accurately represented then I am sorry. From my memory, you HAD labelled us 'hateful' and 'closed-minded'. I mistook your post for wetlogs, which you'd referenced, I'm sending a message of correction to the blogwatch now. The rest remains, including the nature of your posts.

"I'm sorry, but I'll have to ammend my previous message.

It was not anil ([Link: www.dashes.com...] but wetlog ([Link: www.wrongwaygoback.com...] that used out-of context quotes originally (though Anil has used this tactic elsewhere, as his contributors have done in his comments section. This doesn't change the rest of the message, however, and Anil still denegrates LGF as 'racist' based on an admittedly small sampling...while he calls us 'racist' for recognizing that there is a LARGE trend of Anti-Israeli and another LARGE trend of Anti-Semitic writings, proclaimations, and such. Charles set-up a post about your inclusion of LGF on the list, which Anil showed up at ([Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] declaring that he never sent any messages to you and that he doesn't think that LGF is a hate site.

Meanwhile, on his own site he responds to one of our posters, who was angered by his repeated attacks on Charles, with "oh, Jason, don't taunt her. she has no evidence i'm a racist, no rebuttal to any of the points I made, and no disagreement that there are virulently prejudiced xenophobes on LGF. Of course she's got no knowledge about Jon. Some people are just sore losers who can't recognize irony when they see it.
Posted by: Anil on October 19, 2002 03:12 AM".

A compatriot of Anil left this message: "Anil attacked Charles for doing something he didn't literally do, LGF peeps got mad and focused on this, Anil's peeps support Anil in his view that LGF is racist."

Anil had written in his article:
"Protocol dictates that to pose this argument, one most go into the belly of the beast. Their argument is that, when faced with an evil, we must respond with all available means, with no reservation, in attacking those who support that evil. I submit that undifferentiated, xenophobic dismissals of entire cultures, entire peoples, is an evil prejudice. A prejudice that's not just morally wrong, but dangerous because it encourages those who might side with us against the extremists in their culture to instead see us as enemies. Therefore I am morally obligated to engage places where such actions take place, hold the leaders of those places responsible for these evil actions, and not be concerned with the slights that other who are around those evildoers might feel. It's their fault for choosing to be of the same ilk as those poisonous few."

In the same article he wrote of LGFers
"That's not all. They hold tightly onto their suspicions of their enemies, even in face of contradictory facts. They point out that, though some might say things that are evil or wrong, they can understand where the rage comes from. According to doctrine, this means they're all apologists for evil. They should be lumped in with their leaders who fail to rein them in, and written off for good."

HE said on his site ([Link: www.dashes.com...] " I'm not the sort to hold an entire group responsible for the actions of some of its members."

He said at one point on LGF ([Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] "I suppose that this audience prefers that those who disagree with them engage them in a dialogue as peers who differ, rather than being treated with a binary "if you're not with me, you're against me" contempt that lumps them all into one undifferentiated mass.

Imagine that. "

I see this as inexcusable hypocrisy and intentionally dismissive of the benefits and good of LGF.

A comment left by an LGFer (zulubaby) remarks
"Charles happens to be someone that I respect and admire. While there are posters on LGF who froth at the mouth, that does not go for everyone there."

She later stated,
"John W,
What you don't realize is that you are quoting my responses to Anil only. That's not all that's discussed on LGF :-)

As an aside, you might be interested to know that Anil cherry-picked 10 out of 15,000 comments to quote in his silly rant.

That's why I say that he is blind to all comments but the the ones that could be deemed as offensive. 10 out of 15,000 is hardly representative of an entire group."

Zulu has shown herself here to be exactly Anil's ideal person, for arguing against guilt by association, while at the same time that he condemns her, for being associated with those who are less-than-ideal.
----------

--This was what he'd posted on LGF a month ago ([Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] "'This is an encouraging sign, that the hate and bile of the terrorists and their sympathizers are not genetic.'

Was that even a question?! What the hell is wrong with you. The proper response is relief that his brother kept sane values, hope that he can help spread these ideas, sadness at a family's loss of one of their sons/brothers to insanity that cost so many lives. But apparently your reaction is limited to the revelation that gasp! evil isn't associated with one's genetics!

Can I call her a racist now? If she's not, who is?"

TO this caption by Charles:"A young Muslim fellow shows his support for the six accused Al Qaeda members appearing in court in Buffalo, New York."
which was a summary of the original caption by Reuters ("A young Muslim man, who refused to give his name, shows his feelings toward the media outside the Federal Court House in Buffalo, New York September 18, 2002 where he sat to show his support for the six local suspected al-Qaida supporters who appeared inside the court, September 18, 2002.")
[connections above from Blogger William @ [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] , from whom I took both quotes, as well as this point]

Anil wrote of the paraphrase:
"Charles isn't just content with encouraging prejudice, he's actually moved on to making things up now. This guy was flipping the bird to the media, something most people who visit this site probably would like to do, too. You literally have *no idea* anything else this man says or believes, but you believe you can judge what he thinks because of his appearance.

Do you wonder why people accuse visitors to this site of being racist or xenophobic? Do you still deny that it's true? Or argue that it's not true of Charles? You're all lying to yourselves.

And Charles, if I'm wrong, tell me this man's name. Tell me one thing you know about him, other than what he looks like and where he was the day this picture was taken. You know nothing else, and you've drawn conclusions. More proof you're a pathetic racist. "

A poster on Anil's site (John W.) has stated "mathowie: I can safely say comments that Anil (and I) might deem racist are hardly the minority in the LGF thread (and at LGF in general.)

What you consider racist is your own perogative, but don't discount his views by marking them as a response to a "small subset.""

--He certainly chooses his own definitions for racism, but he intentionally passes them off as the 'normal' definition when he uses them.

I think that this is all there is to say about Anil's interactions with LGF. Thank you

Anil

A centrist - only in your deluded dreams of adequacy.......You offer all the examples of a prime idiotarian.

If the attacks on the left fail to get a rise from you, it is not because they don't apply - but more of the point that you disregard them as coming from the uninformed.

"I also think there are posters here who would like to deprive Americans of their rights, simply because they are muslim, arab, or look like they might be one or the other. I don't think the fourth amendment is any less important than the second, ESR be damned."

The only one who seems hell bent on depriving people of their rights, particularly that of free speech is you. Anyone who fails to speak as you do is a racist and or an extremist. Where is your outrage on Clearguidance? or are you just like those who see outrage only when it fits your politics, just as a majority of muslims (as represented by CAIR and other US groups) fail to denounce and take action against those who use children to bomb civilians in Israel.

Anil,

Since you seem to think that Charles can be condemned for the posters at his site I thought I might just mosey through some of your logs’ posts and see what’s there.

Wow. The people at that site really, really scare me.
Not in that "I'm afraid of you, so I'll soil my pants and run away" scared, but the "aww, you poor thing. so dumb and still able to type and screw your sister at the same time" scared.

Yeah, I'm scared... and yeah, in a piss-my-pants oh-my-god why do I have to share my beautiful planet with such vile hate-filled bigots and are they going to kill me for being nice & peaceful -- kind of way.
heh.
I'm not ashamed to admit that. I'm peaceful, and I'm frightened by hateful warmongers. They kill people - innocent, guilty, they care not.

while we're at it lets go read philosophical opinions at [Link: www.ourcross.org,...] now there's a bunch of retards if i ever saw em!

It took me about two minutes to find references to incest, murder and mental illness – very enlightening, but not much for arguments.

And then you post:

Charles also put up a thread about this, I've commented more there. Tellingly, he describes his campaign as a "crusade". Subtle, no?

So that’s like Charles’ sneaky way of calling for the destruction of Islam? Subtle? No.

I also stopped by to read your attempted prose?

[Link: www.fray.com...]

From the beginning

So it's not something I guess I should say right now, but I never liked those towers. Their only purpose, I said, was to help orient oneself when getting out at an unfamiliar subway stop.

To the end

And now I want to take it back. I want to apologize, and say I'm sorry, and that the towers really were beautiful, and I want them to come right back because I didn't mean it when I said I didn't like them. I need them back, really, because it turns out that my statement was true ... without the twin towers, I feel completely disoriented.

That’s what you came away from 9-11 with. The destruction of the twin towers was bad because now you don’t a convenient landmark anymore.

After getting to know you I feel I can safely say that, “you Sir are an idiot.”

Anil:

1) The difference between LGF and CG (Audience)

I believe Charles main problem with clearguidance was its target audience (Children and Teenagers) and the extreme nature of the material. On CG, the forum moderators did everything they could to foster an atmosphere of hatred and violence. While I agree with you, Anil, that 'Death to America' and 'Nuke all Muslims' are essentially the same thing, I think we part when it becomes 'Nuke all Muslims' versus 'When I slit the infidel's throat I will do it slowly to hear his screams.'

I assure you when someone posts to LGF in that vein, it will be deleted. There is a distinction between invoking unlikely political scenarios, like middle eastern nuclear holocaust, and graphic depictions of violence. Perhaps 99% of what is said on CG is posturing by spoiled brats, but what of the true believers? The likelihood of someone posting on LGF actually going out and killing a muslim is very slim. With CG it is less certain--teenage mujahideen have more than proven themselves ready and willing.

2) The difference between LGF and CG (Ownership/Moderation)

Needless to say, there is a distinction. You can say 'LGF and CG both have hateful posters, therefore LGF cannot criticize CG on the subject of hateful commentators', but I think you are missing the point. The training and recruiting of terrorists is real, and there is good reason to believe that CG could be used as a recruiting tool. While I am inclined to dismiss it myself as internet posturing, I can't ignore the possibility that it might be a front for something more sinister, especially considering the dodgy moderators and ownership of CG.

Is LGF the same? Our core beliefs are sound, rooted in history and conductive to modernity. The people that are calling for the deaths of all muslims are mildly brain damaged fringe elements. The core belief of a site like CG, on the other hand, is fundamentalist islam which, if you read LGF, is universally bad news. The fact that the moderators do not moderate these statements is because they agree with them. They are ready and willing to moderate contrary viewpoints and ban the people that speak them. Charles doesn't agree with everyone posting--he leaves his forums largely unmoderated because to do so is a facet of his core believes.

I found these interesting links on Anil's site:

Cheesedip

What Anil said.

FCD/the weblog

I read a lot of weblogs. Some I learn from, others amuse me, others make me question my prejudices and...

Q Daily News: Sneaky way to prove a point?

I'm not sure if the essay was meant to lead to its own validation (and I wouldn't put it past that sneaky bastard Anil), but there may not have been any more effective a way to prove the point of this essay than the development of this thread.

Leuschke

Some mornings I hate to wake up and see what's happened.

Little Green Racists

Notwithstanding the evident message of racism in the popular weblog Little Green Footballs, what concerns me the most is that there has not been a vocal blog-wide resistance against it already. If we accept any form of racism against any group of peop...

And another called ccodtnet. Unfortunately, the link seems to be broken, but here's the blurb next to it:

Anil Dash writes about the downward spiral of the now warblog Little Green Footballs and it's sparked some discussion on...

I love it. You can tell you've made progress as a legitimate interest group when Republicans want to woo you as well as convert you.

Jews, like most Americans these days, are voting for particular issues, not parties. I expect gays and blacks are doing the same. If and when the war on terror is won, we will find out how all these constituencies will vote on whatever issues are most pressing at the time.

Remember the meme of the prosperous 90s - "socially liberal, fiscally conservative"? No reason for that one to have gone away just because we are in a war and recession. People who were pro-choice and who believed in separation of church and state before don't suddenly become anti-choice and believers in federal support of religion just because there's a war on.

Why the Jewish vote counts:
[Link: www.forward.com...]

All the evidence so far is that Jews are not changing their party affiliation in great numbers, are still mostly pro-choice and civil libertarians, and still support liberal domestic programs.
[Link: www.jpost.com...]
(there is a poll from 2002 confirming this data but I can't find a URL for it)

Neither the Republicrats or the Demicans can take anything for granted anymore.

PS. I was responding to the link "Gays Make a Right Turn." I was comparing this deduction about gay voting patterns to the same one made about Jewish voting patterns and speculating that neither can be taken for granted.

Anil (#41)
You obviously did not read my post carefully enough. Please try again.

And, although GI JOE was having a little fun at your expense, I see no hatred (or fear) of homosexuals in his post. I do see another example of yelling, "homophobe", or "racist" whenever you (or any other lefty) reads or hears something that you do not like.

And, the article he linked to uses statistics that you lefties don't like, hence your objection.

Despite the difference in tenor of the 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential campaigns, the proportion of self-identified gays voting for Republicans has steadily increased. Self-identified gays have represented between 4% to 5% of all voters during the last four election cycles, a proportion double that of American Jews. In 1998, 4.2% of voters were self-identified gays (a figure likely to be understated due to the personal nature of one's sexual orientation) while 2.6% of voters were Jews.

In 1992, 23% of gays voted for the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives. That figure increased to 26% in 1994, 28% in 1996, and 33% in 1998. In 2000, over one-fourth of all self-identified gays voted for an unabashed economic and social conservative, George W. Bush. Though no polls have been released since September 11, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that gays are extremely supportive of the war on terrorism and are identifying more with center-right politicians than the usual neo-socialist busybodies offered by the Democrats.

You would do well to read this article and the four reasons given for the rightward drift of the gay population. Even a disingenuous sort such as yourself will see that there is no homophobia here.

I thought I should respond to this, specifically, as an extension of my previous post.

The larger point is that there are extremists among you, and that you all seem to be of the mind that that's acceptable, while other groups must constantly be vigilant of the virulent extremists in their midst. I am pointing out that both groups are equally dangerous to our safety and future, and must be treated the same.

By saying that extremism is not the monolithic force you make it out to be. There are different kinds of extremist, the vast majority of which I normally roll my eyes at and go about my business. Because of time considerations, I concern myself with credible threats. Given that the entirety of post 9/11 anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. was not enough to inspire more than a single handful of individuals to action, I don't consider it a credible threat--either now or in the foreseeable future.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Anil's comments, at least as expressed here. Charles, you may seek to reveal unpleasant truths rather than to hatemonger, although you certainly throw out a lot of red meat (as does Taranto's Best of the Web). But quite a few of the regular LGF commentators are far beyond the pale. For example, I would ban Michael Glazer, Nastification Agenda, and (on evidence above) GI Joe. One of the benefits of putting the commentator's name above the comment is to allow us to bypass the ones we regularly find to be without redeeming value. Sometimes I come away from LGF so disgusted that I boycott the comments for a while.

At the same time, I think LGF has drifted toward a more militantly anti-Palestinian and anti-Islamist stance in response to real-world events (as I have). It would be interesting to compare the drift in the opposite direction that Metafilter has apparently undergone (in response to rank hatred of their Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft troika and imaginary conspiracies as much as real-world events). Many of their commentators are as bad as LGF's worst, but no other blog I've come across is in the same subterranean sewer league as ClearGuidance.

A note-I began the above post right after I saw Anil's posting.

Dar ul Harb,
I LOVE the suggested name!

Photios,
I understand where your attack is pointed, thank you for the praise, but it is not necessary.

ORDER OF BUSINESS: WE NEED A TERM (sorry Anil for encouraging people to coin a new term) FOR LOONY/WACKY LEFT ABOVE AND BEYOND IDIOTARIAN, I FEEL THAT ONLY A SIMPLE TERM WILL ALLOW US TO PROGRESS OUR ARGUMENTS WITH THE CORRECT INFLECTION.

Anil,
I never DID call you anti-semitic. I said that LGF "has mostly been attacked by people who then repeat well-worn anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic points." I sure hope that you did not automatically self-identify with this group, or there would be even more serious problems for me to comment on.
Furthermore, I AM on the Left, but I have bothered to clarify the term and only once, on my first post as an unknown, had anyone give me flak for the request for clarification (even then it was 'watch out, or you might be labeled a ----'). I know from experience that the Left is largely short-hand for the Loony Left that has proclaimed itself the leader of the Liberals, even when none of them are allowed onto any Democratic Party policy-making boards or to run for office on our behalf.

AN IDEA FOR THE TERM: DOES ANYONE KNOW THE 3RD PERSON PLURAL DECLINATION OF 'JUDENHASS'?

-Ratz

And zulubaby, that boy’s got a hard on for you that just won’t quit. It’s like being back in the 3rd grade. I’m sure if you had them he’d be pulling your pigtales.
Anil, doesn’t an obsession with a kufar contravene some Islamic tenet?

Re #17 You’re a zulubabe in my book no mater what color you are.

It is a dangerous path that people tred when they start banning people and comments.

I believe it is an injustice to call for the banning of Michael Glazer, Nastification Agenda, or GI Joe based on their comments. Can they be extreme - and distasteful to some / most? Yes. But are we (and you Joel - #54) intelligent enough to either try to educate them or ignore them? Is censorship the answer?

There is a big difference between these viewpoints from the right - and the vile / hatred / threats / death videos that are common on ClearGuidance. I don't call for CG to be censored either - if we do, how do we learn about the threat? I do advocate tracking them, watching them, and taking action if they undertake actions that do break the law.

Let's assume that people are smart enough to make up their own minds and know right from wrong until they prove us wrong. Then when they break the law - hold them accountable. If all someone offers is hate speech, feel free to ignore them and move to the next post.

Do that, and you are doing something that a majority of inhabitants of this planet aren't allowed to do.

Geepers (#56)

LOL!

You're cute. Thank you.

Alas, I didn't have pigtails in 3rd grade. My hair is far too unruly to be tamed into pigtails (much as I would have liked them).

Joel in Honolulu,

You cannot Ban the Truth!

All throughout history a small minority voice of truth has always been there with all the heckles of the vast greater mob majority who tries to silence righteousness they themselves know.

Jew killing is basically the Freudian concept of the mainstream 'killing their concious' to avoid being good and allow for more guilt-free hedonism.

If you good and honest you might figure out what it is.

It's good to be good and bad to be bad.
Human 101

"anti-Palestinian and anti-Islamist stance"

I wouldn't have it any other way.

-- 'A Real American Hero'

Ratz (#55)

ORDER OF BUSINESS: WE NEED A TERM (sorry Anil for encouraging people to coin a new term) FOR LOONY/WACKY LEFT ABOVE AND BEYOND IDIOTARIAN, I FEEL THAT ONLY A SIMPLE TERM WILL ALLOW US TO PROGRESS OUR ARGUMENTS WITH THE CORRECT INFLECTION.

I very much agree. I hope you understand that thinkers like yourself are not the lefties that I am critical of. (Sorry about ending with a preposition.) In fact you are where I used to be, and by the strength of your positions you allow me to see the value in some of those viewpoints. I must thank you for that. Sadly, I think that there are very few like you.

Anil (#41)
What percentage of the modern left do you think falls under that category?

Most of those who publish and broadcast and teach in universities. Guys like Ratz are, sadly, rare.

This idiot objects to Fisk as a verb, and claims (anti-)idiotarianism simply isn't a word.
Fisk is just as valid Bork, which has become a commonplace verb in American political discourse, The English language is replete with words once proper names.

Similarly, anti-idiotarian is a terrific useful word. Folks from almost everywhere in the political spectrum are willing to recognize nonsense when they see it, and public point it out. What unifies anti-idiotarians is their insistence on rational discourse, and those argumentation from those segments with a large population of anti-idiotarians have a much healthier and saner sound to it.
Every one lapses into nonsense from time to time, but if we read our vents before we hit the send key we can generally avoid a public record of our forays into incoherence, those who refuse such introspection are fair game for the Anti-idiotarians. LGF readers, in particular, are quite good at shooting down nonsense when it appears on that sites comment pages, and most of the posts Anil complains of have already been quite thoroughly savaged there.
Idiotarianism is a back formation of less general applicability, reserved for positions of total incoherence. Noam Chomsky comes readily to mind.

He objects of adjectivePundits. Folx like like Glenn Reynolds, (InstaPundit) far outstrip the influence of Anil Dash. Yeah, most of the wannabe bloggers inspired by him are rightfully all but ignored. Still, new bloggers with something interesting to say are constantly appearing. My favorite list is ever-growing, though not with a link to Anil's site.

Why is Anil trying to fight a rearguard prescriptivist battle against such expressive neologisms?
Evidently, his blog is some three years. Is he trying to protect his squatters' rights? Perhaps he considers himself somehow "old money", and looks down on the nouveau riche.

That’s what you came away from 9-11 with. The destruction of the twin towers was bad because now you don’t a convenient landmark anymore.

It was an allegory, and a painfully simple one at that. I'm not here to defend an essay on one facet of my reactions to the attacks.

More to the point: Where is your outrage on Clearguidance?

I'm disgusted by that site. It's a hate site, so I don't consider it worthwhile to go in and try to persuade people that their point is legitimate enough to be worth trying to present eloquently. Are you arguing that LGF is a hate site as well, or that its participants are equal to those of clearguidance? If so, you ought to address those concerns to Charles, not me.

#40

"You all probably don't believe me, but I'm actually politically very much of a centrist. (That's why your attacks against the left don't bother me much; It doesn't include me.) "

Is he in denial?

"i mentioned zulu's ethnicity as evidence that she's seen the negativity of racism firsthand"

WTF does her ethnicity have to do with it? You labeled her to slam her. admit it your a leftist.

come on, preceding something like
"with a painful misunderstanding of what the word "racism" means"
with
"who's apparently a blonde-haired white woman from south africa"

WTF is that? Like being a blonde haired white woman from south africa is supporting evidence that she has a painful misunderstanding"?

It's like the scene out of Monty Pythons Holy Grail.

"You got no bloody arms left!"

"Yes i do. look...see it's just a flesh wound!"

Oh yea GO JOE

GI Joe,

By the way, I'm onto you ;-)

And to Athos' post #57, I would like to add that while Michael Glazer may rant on occasion, his heart is in the right place. There is passion behind his fight against Anti-Semitism, in particular. On the occasion that Michael has overstepped the boundaries, Charles has personally reprimanded him and told him to cool his heels.

The other point I'd like to make is that the posters at Clear Guidance are kids, with a bloodlust for slowly and painfully dissecting "Juicy Jewz". While a few here may scream about "nuking all Muslims", it is nothing like what goes on at Clear Guidance. It is also not the general theme here.

Similarly, anti-idiotarian is a terrific useful word.

It's clearly not useful. The definition of "idiot", in this context, is people with whom you disagree. As each of you has different opinions (assuming some of you aren't as homophobic as GI JOE, for instance) your personal set of idiots will change. So you collectively consider idiots to be anyone with whom any of you disagree? And then what makes an idiot an idiotarian? That they advocate a course of action with which you disagree? Doesn't that seem a bit circular?

If you describe yourself as an anti-idiotarian, you're proudly saying.... what, exactly? That you're against the advancement of idiotic agendas? Well, brave stance, that. But meaningless. And, more importantly, you're relegating yourselves to a ghetto. It's a shame your leaders aren't savvy enough to tell you this, but you're excusing yourself from the table at which normal discourse takes place if you result to calling sane, rational people with whom you disagree "idiots", let alone bizarre formations based on that word.

here is a copy of what I sent to the best blog site.

Thanks for adding this site to your list.
Only InstaPundit and the Volokh conspiracy have pride of place over it on my list of favorites.
I still find myself shocked when seemingly intelligent people tell me to my face things like "the Palestinians' don't have any means of defending themselves" besides blowing up kids waiting for the school bus.
I despair of educating anyone like that who has allowed their mind to become so warped, but at least I have a place to send the folks who overhear such nonsense, but don't where to hear a more rational viewpoint defended.

Joel of Honalulu,
If there is to be a banning of those who stand up and try to post what they feel, even if it rubs others the wrong way, while still holding back from statements describing wet-dreams about murdering infidels, then I AM SPARTACUS! (or, for the reference-challenged, BAN ME AS WELL). I think that you will find PLENTY of hatefulness in my previous posts (go ahead, just type 'Ratz' into the LGF search box, you can find all of my posts!). I distinctly remember my proclaimation in one of my first posts that I am 'racist and biased in all my accounts.' This statement was made to drive home the point that NO ONE is above bias, but, when it is easy to see, things have gone too far.

Lumina T (#48)
I think that you'll have to add the origins of the two boards. LGF began as a blog about programming; CG has, from what I've seen, ALWAYS been what it is- before AND after 9-11.

-Ratz

If ye must fall to censorship, then censor us all- thoughts, minds, and hearts- lest we begin to feel that something is missing and DARE to think for ourselves.

"If you describe yourself as an anti-idiotarian, you're proudly saying.... what, exactly? That you're against the advancement of idiotic agendas? Well, brave stance, that. But meaningless."

If, Anil, you describe yourself as an anti-racist, you're proudly saying . . . what, exactly? That you're against the advancement of racist agendas? Well, brave stance, that. But meaningless.

Meaningless, that is, in the context of LGF. I still don't understand what you want Charles to do--or where you stand on on any of the issues LGF readers care about.

The best rebuttal to the most over-the-top spleen venting one occasionally finds on LGF would be a link to the moderate voices of Islam. I, for one, long to here the call for pluralism and tolerance emanate from the centers of influence in the Muslim world. When reasoned voices do appear, LGF has linked to them. One poster on clearguidance, for example, suggested backing away from bin Laden's call for indiscriminate mass murder and one writer for the Arab News called for a realistic Arab self-assessment. These voices are quickly overwhelmed by outpourings of vitriol and Jew hatred. The fellow over at clearguidance was ripped to shreds for his supposed deviation from the true faith.

I applaud LGF (and MEMRI and IMRA and a few others) for shining a light on the messages coming from the mosques of the Arab world. There's no bias in letting people speak for themselves. If they sound hateful and bloodthirsty, that's their own problem. Are there any Islamic sermons that admit Jews into the human family? That would give lie to the "Islam is incitement to murder" thesis, an idea badly in need of rebuttal from within the Muslim community.

Where are the Muslim truth-speakers willing to say that suicide bombing discredits the Palestinian cause and corrupts Palestinian culture? We hear a lot of jihad, jihad, jihad and shaheed, shaheed, shaheed, but little in the way of leadership or self-reflection.

Arab and, more broadly, Muslim culture must distance itself from Mohammed Atta and his cult of destruction. That seems obvious, but its frustrating to hear the Mossad/CIA conspiracy theories bandied about and to hear about continued funding and sympathy for al Qaeda. If the terror networks appeal to only a small minority of Muslims, that's great, the rest can help us get on with cleaning up the mess and when its over we can all live in peace. If, as it sometimes seems, the appeal to bloody conflict has made deep inroads into Arab and Muslim thinking, if slaughter has become inseparable from the religion, this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. This is not a choice that can or will be made by non-muslims (or, if you prefer, kaffir, infidels, and the descendants of pigs and monkeys). Like it or not, Muslims will be judged by the non-muslim world on the basis of their words and actions. I hope for all of us we see increasing evidence of a frank desire for peaceful coexistence. If and when it comes, I trust LGF will post it.

Anil (#65)
You're not getting it. An idiotarian is NOT necessarily someone we disagree with. It is someone on the political right or left who is a blind and unreasoning follower of that groups ideology. Usually idiotarians do not support their arguments with any sort of reason or evidence, but simply twist words, misrepresent ideas, and/or just engage in ad hominem appeals or attacks.

You may not have noticed this, but we often disagree, and often do so respectfully.

BTW: It would be nice if you would stop misrepresenting our words and ideas.

:-)

Charles or Anyone- HELP
Where was that post that established that word?

#65

Anti-idiotarian, whatever its merits, is a facetious term. It is merely meant to describe the consensus that crops up between a number of bloggers possessed of common sense. It is not really meant to be taken seriously, but it does have its purpose.

I don't believe anyone that grasps the subtlety of the situation really considers anti-idiotarianism to be some kind of alternative ideology.

I did find the Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto today. While still in beta, it provides a useful enough approximation. Though, again, the format of the document suggests more than a little tongue in cheek.

Listen, overall this arguement is like the Special Olympics. You may win, but your still f*cking retarded. These are blog sites for godsakes.

Re 65
Anil, I was intemperate in referring to you as an idiot.
But objecting to Fisk as a verb because it's someones name still strikes me as rather silly.

I have a friend who thinks that Stalin is the most important public figure of the twentieth century. I find this to be an appalling point of view, but he has coherent reasons for believing so, and can express them. I would never think of him as idiot. On the other hand, when someone recently told me that the reason that hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have starved in the last few years is not because their government is composed of psychotics, but rather that those folks were rational in diverting money that could be used to feed people towards the much more important task of building nuclear weapons, since they had ample reason to fear an attack from the US and South Korea.
This person I do consider an idiot.
As I posted, idiotic stuff is posted by people from all parts of the political spectrum.
The most effective anti-idiotarians are people like Chris Hitchens, who has a superb leftist pedigree, but has simply had enough of the contortions that people at places like the Nation are going through, to ignore the realities of the middle east.
I'm not altogether certain that I support the imminent war against Iraq, and at the very least recognize that there are serious arguments for either slowing down, or not launching the war at all.
Bush is, for example, significantly less than forthright about the economic implications of us repeating war on Iraq without the open checkbooks wielded by countries like Japan which were quite forthcoming 10 years ago.
However, arguments such as "the US backed Saddam Hussein 20 years ago, so they don't have the right to attack him now", are simply incorent. When the knee-jerk anti-war crowd starts stringing together such non sequiturs, it would behoove the anti-idiotarian segment of the universe of anti-war sentiment to tell the idiots to put a lid on it, so that legitimate arguments can be made.
Yeah, I disagree with idiocy, but I hardly believe that everything I disagree with is idiotic.
However, in general, its hard for me to keep prescriptivism is lexicography out of the idiot's column.

Anil (#40)

Sorry to address a long-ago post, but I was just carefully reading through all the posts, again.

I want to address this specifically:

zulubaby:

The Islamic faith has been hijacked by the extremists.

Anil:

I knew we agreed on more than we disagreed on.

Finally! Do you have any idea of how many times I have tried to get you to understand that I am as opposed to racism as you are? That is what you never seemed to get. I was not arguing with you about your issue with it, I was arguing with you about calling me one, and, of course, your allegations that LGF as a site, and the LGFer's as a group, are racist.

I'm saying that LGF has been hijacked by the extremists, too.

We are never going to agree on this. The extremists on LGF are few and far between. Anil, at risk of boring you and everyone else here, in your latest screed about LGF on your own site, you quoted 10 out of 15,000 comments to back up your allegation that LGF was a racist site.

Anil,

In post #45, Ratz puts it more succinctly than I do.

Zulu has shown herself here to be exactly Anil's ideal person, for arguing against guilt by association, while at the same time that he condemns her, for being associated with those who are less-than-ideal.

Thanks for helping me out Ratz.

GI Joe (#59)

You cannot Ban the Truth!

I can't tell you how much I love that.

Gkarp (#70)

You're exactly right. And LGF consistently links to those moderate voices, wherever Charles finds them. But they're few and far between. And that brings me no comfort. Anil seems to be accusing LGF of glorying in the tragedy that's unfolding in the Muslim world. I, for one, find my daily perusing of LGF to be very grim reading. Disturbing, frightening, depressing. The occasional note of hope comes as a relief. I bet most LGF readers feel the same--contrary to Anil's hollow accusations.

Photios (#77)

Guys like Ratz are, sadly, rare.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Listen, overall this arguement is like the Special Olympics.

Funny you should mention Olympics.

I can't speak for other LGF posters, but my guess is that many of them would get great joy out of helping a special Olympian cross a finish line.

Of course if that special Olympian was Jewish, the Clearguidance.com kids would be glad to shoot him/her on the field (inspired by their "heroes" of September 5, 1972).

Actually, this argument seems like a microcosm of the accusations thrown at Israel when it tries to point out Arab atrocities.
When that happens you can always count on an Arab reply of "Zionism is racism" and pleas to the media to condemn the invented perspective of the "cycle of violence"

LGF points out the little terror brats on Clearguidance.com and criticizes them for their hate lust. And the "defenders of the downtrodden" come back with accusations of racism.

Just as Israel is accused of not stopping "the cycle of violence", we can expect LGF to be accused of not stopping the "cycle of racism."

Yep folks, it's all our fault by default...the ones who point out the difference between good and evil will always be the next ones to be accused of being evil.

I am pleased to see that the question has been raised on a broader scale as to whether or not LGF is "too hateful?" (in this context, too hateful for the MSNBC Best of Blogs list.) My parents warned me not to say or do anything I would not want published on the front page of the newspaper the next morning. This thread is creeping towards the front page.

and on that note,

"It is laughable that you would consider LGF dangerous. For heaven's sake Anil! And you can't possibly be serious in your attempt to put LGF on par with a real hate site like Clear Guidance."
-zulubaby

I think LGF has the potential to be dangerous. Mixing conservative ideology and subtle (or not so subtle) racism with a relatively large reader base chips away at a wider foundation of resistance against bigotry. A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of Islamic culture is a slippery slope at best.

Whether an entry is sarcastically titled "Peaceful Religion Watch" or explicitly names Islam as a "Religion of Murder," it will most likely be followed by a number of outright hateful comments without criticism. Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Few LGF readers will deny there are fanatics in the midst, but even fewer will seek to correct the errant vitriol. Such viewpoints thus crawl towards acceptability among readers and commenters (by repetition if nothing else!)

Now that the spotlight is on LGF I am curious to see if this trend continues, or will LGF (or its fanatics) be too shy to comment "Someone put a bullet through his head!" or "he is lonely and wants his goat" about an anonymous, American Muslim man in a photograph. (quotes courtesy of LGF readers Wyatt Earp and bcwake, respectively)

Anil (#62)

Are you arguing that LGF is a hate site as well, or that its participants are equal to those of clearguidance?

No Anil, that was what you were attempting to do over here.

As for deletion of comments as an option, it's not censorship, as this is a private site. And it's totally in keeping with the suggestions made for clearguidance.org.

The larger point is that there are extremists among you, and that you all seem to be of the mind that that's acceptable, while other groups must constantly be vigilant of the virulent extremists in their midst. I am pointing out that both groups are equally dangerous to our safety and future, and must be treated the same.

To which I have already responded, in post #31:

It is laughable that you would consider LGF dangerous. For heaven's sake Anil! And you can't possibly be serious in your attempt to put LGF on par with a real hate site like Clear Guidance. Even you must realize how ridiculous that it. As far as I know, no-one here has ever e-mailed the webmaster of Clear Guidance, insisting they delete comments. On the contrary.

Yesterday, MSNBC’s Weblog Central linked to LGF, after several readers recommended us. Today the LGF detractors (one in particular) are trying to smear us as a "hate" site.

This is it, LGF posters. This is the point where you can either listen to the broader web community that the tone of LGF is becoming increasingly racist and do something about it, or you can stick your head in the sand and deny everything. Unfortunately, it appears that the LGF mass is moving towards the latter (yet again), unable to believe that it might possibly be in the wrong.

#2 - From MSNBC’s Weblog Central

Little Green Footballs A popular but controversial Warblog focusing on militant Islam and terrorism. Is this news or hate?

Well, it’s neither one of those things. It’s an open forum for discussion of current events. Are these people stupid or what?

Okay Geepers, what was wrong with that sentence? It is a weblog, it is controversial, and it does focus on militant Islam and terrorism.

#7 From what I have seen of LGFI believe that it has mostly been attacked by people who then repeat well-worn anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic points (i.e. 'Jews control the media', 'Israel drinks the blood of Palestinians', 'The Jews of Europe aren'y REALLY the Biblical jews, just Khazars- so they don't have the RIGHT to be in Israel' etc).

Well, I've never seen Anil say that, or myself, or Jason, or Matt, or any others outside the LGF boards say it. As for controlling the media - from what I've read on LGF, the media is controlled by a vast left-wing anti-zionist conspiracy. Right? Wrong.

#7 there is a group of LGFers who defend the points and fight these Trolls with logic.

But this tends to happen only with anti-Jewish comments. The anti-Islam commentators get away with it fine. Take, for instance, the LGF regular "Nastification Agenda".

Tell your government representative that you want the four structures that house the ideologues of MURDER, utterly destroyed, and that you want Mecca and Medina to be nuked, and THEN you want Saddam Hussein and his entire cabinet and military cronies flown to a remote Pacific island.

And a dozen other comments like it... where's the outrage? Where's the "group of LGFers who defend the points and fight these Trolls with logic". Now, when NA started posting, sure there were arguments against his crap, but since then people here have simply become tolerant of it. Tolerant of racism.

#22 Perhaps the people who don't like lgf don't like it because so many of the contributors are Jewish and/or pro-Israel. Is that still okay, or is being Jewish/pro-Israel bad in itself, and a good reason for withdrawing your recommendation of lgf?

That's a beautiful curve ball. Accuse the MSNBC person of anti-Semitism for asking the question of whether LGF supports hate. A wonderful way to make them back down. And by the way - just because someone is (pro-)Jewish doesn't make them immune to being racist. It can come from the Left, the Right, the extreme and the mainstream. Sometimes I feel the problem on LGF is that the posters have been so well trained in spotting anti-Jewish racism that they over-analyse the simplest of news-stories for such messages, but as they haven't learnt yet how to spot anti-Muslim racism, it goes unnoticed.

#23 With all that anil time you give to the 'boys' right.. ?

Oh, gay jokes now? Based on a name from another culture? Is this an LGF first: homo-xeno-phobia?

#24 "Bill's visitors are much more heartless than LGF's"



#25 "have you ever bothered to wander into a yahoo forum?"



#31 "you can't possibly be serious in your attempt to put LGF on par with a real hate site like Clear Guidance"

So it's okay to make racist comments, just so long as they're not as bad as on other sites? What a crock.

#28 And its bad to be anti-Islam because.... why now?

The people you are fighting against are a tiny minority sect within Islam, not a population of 1.2 billion people across over 40 countries? Does that help you?

#31 This is not a hate site, nor is it a propaganda site. Charles merely exposes the truth, and you seem to hold him responsible for the fact that the truth is very often ugly.

Even when the articles are proven false? There is little critical examination of those articles slamming Islam here (such as those by Daniel Pipes). There is little comparison of "Islamic fundamentalism" to "Western fundamentalism". There is little comparison of "Muslim" acts to relevant "Christian" acts (such as this vs this). There is a lot of discussion about those articles that are anti-Jewish, but not anti-Islam. It seems the critical thinking skills have been lost amongst the mob mentality, and the mob mentality is quickly turning sour. But it's not yet time to do anything about that yet, right?

#37 Nothing like using someone else's success to raise your own standing. Anil, your eyes are glowing bright, venomous green.

Sorry, gotta call bullshit on that. Anil's site has been well trafficked and respected for years. He has nothing to be jealous of LGF about.

It was not anil but wetlog that used out-of context quotes originally...

I'm sorry, I forgot how the quote "Saying your a mainstream muslim is like saying your a moderate Nazi. Its an oxymoron. The whole religion is evil and preverted from mohammad whom was a pedophile to these murderous beasts" within context wasn't racist. My mistake.

The only one who seems hell bent on depriving people of their rights, particularly that of free speech is you. Anyone who fails to speak as you do is a racist and or an extremist. Where is your outrage on Clearguidance?

This, on the site that shut-down Clearguidance. It's an all-or-nothing rule. Either you believe both LGF and Clearguidance should be protected and unmoderated, despite the comments, and that the administrators bear responsibility for the comments on their site, or you defend, to the death, the right of the sites to say it. LGF had Clearguidance shut down - is that representative of LGF's attitude to free speech?

For the record, I think it's great that Clearguidance was shut-down, and believe Charles should moderate LGF far more than he does right now. Oooooh, censorship, it's sooo scary... unless it's happening to someone else.

I assure you when someone posts to LGF in that vein, it will be deleted.

Like here? or here? or here? or here?

Where are the Muslim truth-speakers willing to say that suicide bombing discredits the Palestinian cause and corrupts Palestinian culture?

Try, for a start, [Link: www.mpfweb.org...] [Link: islamlib.com...] [Link: www.shalomctr.org...] , [Link: www.progressivemuslims.com...] , or [Link: jang.com.pk...] .

Anil, at risk of boring you and everyone else here, in your latest screed about LGF on your own site, you quoted 10 out of 15,000 comments to back up your allegation that LGF was a racist site.

And I've quoted others, and can easily find more. And that's the point - LGF is becoming increasingly racist in tone, and more and more people are beginning to realise this. Why do people here think that post here describing various comments as "racist" are happening more frequently? It's because the attitude here is getting worse and worse. I've argued that Charles needs to do something about it, and was vilified for my efforts. It seems to me that the decent people on LGF are more willing to defend the rabble than try to do something about them.

Zulubaby #64 - Absolutely no disagreement from me regarding the need, or the right, to display passion. Michael Glazer was named only in response to Anil's post using him specifically as an example of the extremism of LGF. The only cases I have found that offended me, Charles was already there with comments. I heartedly disagree that LGF is extreme, and have read Charles take some of the ones who go a little over the top to task.

Anil, you say, "It's a shame your leaders aren't savvy enough to tell you this, but you're excusing yourself from the table at which normal discourse takes place if you result to calling sane, rational people with whom you disagree "idiots", let alone bizarre formations based on that word. "

well, well, well. You seem to have not only an interesting definition of sane, rational people, but also a complete lack of understanding of the term idiotarian. Perhaps it is because your pride refuses to accept it is a term that applies so well to you. An idiotarian a person who despite all facts, evidence, logic to contrary, holds a viewpoint, opinion, or position that is based on emotion and bias. In other words, most people believe what they see. Idiotarians, see what they believe.

we can expect LGF to be accused of not stopping the "cycle of racism."
-PDM

yes, I think that's exactly what I am accusing LGF of.

Yep folks, it's all our fault by default...the ones who point out the difference between good and evil will always be the next ones to be accused of being evil.
-PDM

not that I am saying LGF is evil, but generally the evil tend to point out the difference between good and evil the most often. Take bin Laden and his ideas of Western infidels for example.

GAboy (#73) LOL! (Or, to be PC, developmentally challenged. But call it what you will, it still has the same end result!) ;-)

re #55

I just call them "swipes" - short for "asswipes"
(sorry for the cruditude, dude)

I haven't read the entire running commentary between LGFer's and Anil but I have one observation based on my experiences here -v- examining clearguidance:

While there may be extremists here (there are), they are the exception, not the rule. Not only that but Charles has made a point of calling people on less than acceptable posts. Clearguidance on the other hand is mob ruled by the fanatics. Any voice other than that of jihad mentality gets shouted down or banished. In my mind the difference is huge. Thank God Charles is a believer in the first amendment. The exchange of opinion here is refreshing because even the extremists make us pause to think.

Thanks Charles!

#81: "A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of Islamic culture is a slippery slope at best."

A slippery slope sloping down toward what? This "racism" you and Anil keep shrieking about? Islamic terrorism transcends race--witness the black Qaeda operatives in that recently busted cell in Seattle, or that Indonesian cleric behind the Bali bombing, or the head of the Filipino Abu Sayaf they just captured, or the German Baader-Meinhorf terrorists who killed Jonathan Netanyahu at Entebbe. Witness it's victims: black Christians in the Sudan and Nigeria, Hindus in India, Jews in Tel Aviv, etc.

Why is it some kind of heresy to point out the moral failings of a culture that has produced the Palestinian suicide bomber--an aberration as morally foul as anything in human history?

Jeez! I only finish with one message when you send 10 more! So, rapidity will follow.

Athos (#57)
Great stuff.

GI Joe (#59)
I may not agree with you on everything, but more great stuff.

Photios (#60)
Thanks for the praise. On the New Term, do you think that Charles would be willing to open up a post for its' discussion? (*cough*cough*). On the Left, don't give us all (or even most Left professors) up for dead! I know at least one professor at Stanford who was willing to discuss the benefits and detractors of the uses of Marijuana and Hemp in mainstream society while not falling to Idiotarianism. I think that the Wacky-Left has made enough sound and noise to distract us from their essential lack of numbers, both as members and as supporters (sorry, but Anil is at least partially right here- because many of the 'moderate left' just consider themselves to be Left-of-Center/ (a Bill Clintonian New Democrat)). I really believe that our fight is a fight for the minds of those of the Left who base their opinions on Common Sense (hmm, both a reference to Thomas Paine and not at the same time), who, like Israel, cannot imagine why anyone WOULDN'T be able see what's wrong with the 'Palestinians'. This doesn't mean that the Wacky-Left are not a threat or not large, but there IS a 'silent majority' in the Democratic Party, though we ARE able to control the real power.

Robert (#61)
Wow. Thanks for contributing!

Anil (#62)
"I'm disgusted by that site. It's a hate site, so I don't consider it worthwhile to go in and try to persuade people that their point is legitimate enough to be worth trying to present eloquently."
--So, to risk twisting your words, are you saying that CG is a hate site because of their GRAMMAR? That they are only not worthy of debate because they don't know how to capitalize 'jews' correctly, so you can't tell them how RIGHT they are? Please be careful, your diction does not match with your above claims of "And, if being anti-left is evil, then count me in. I think that the free speech hating, America hating, Judenhass practicing, Saddam loving, moral equivalence drawing left is beneath despicable," might be destroyed- do not open yourself to this, it is disruptive to your, and our real intents.

"Are you arguing that LGF is a hate site as well, or that its participants are equal to those of clearguidance? If so, you ought to address those concerns to Charles, not me."
--This is intentional manipulation of words and I think that the victim enjoyed it as much as MY manipulation of YOUR words above.

(#65 of the same)
I would disagree, but find myself with little time to expound upon the multitudinous benefits of (Anti-)Idiotarian as a term, so I will not leave an argument half-baked and leave it to others.

Zulubaby (#64)
Thanks for the great input, per usual.

John Wehr (#81)

I think LGF has the potential to be dangerous. Mixing conservative ideology and subtle (or not so subtle) racism with a relatively large reader base chips away at a wider foundation of resistance against bigotry. A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of Islamic culture is a slippery slope at best.

I'm curious to know how much time you have spent here, how well you know the commentators, how you got here, and lastly, if you have ever spent time over at Clear Guidance. Why are you opposed to the "moral failings of Islamic culture" being exposed? There is danger in pretending that the extemists of Islam do not exist, or in ignoring their daily calls for the destruction of the West.

Few LGF readers will deny there are fanatics in the midst, but even fewer will seek to correct the errant vitriol. Such viewpoints thus crawl towards acceptability among readers and commenters (by repetition if nothing else!)

For want of a better way to put it, bullshit! The "fanatics" in our midst are tamed by the "non-fanatics" when they get out of hand, and by Charles too. You are in no position to say that their viewpoints are acceptable to the other posters here. Why would you even assume that to be the case? This is not a politically correct site, for sure, but that does not mean that we don't at least attempt to keep a level of decency here. Certainly far more than I've seen on many other discussion sites. This is an open forum. I'm curious, if you were in a restaurant, and you heard a stranger at another table voicing an opinion that you didn't agree with, would you march over and bash them over the head with a rolled up newspaper? If not, would that mean that you accepted or agreed with their opinion?

Now that the spotlight is on LGF I am curious to see if this trend continues, or will LGF (or its fanatics) be too shy to comment "Someone put a bullet through his head!" or "he is lonely and wants his goat" about an anonymous, American Muslim man in a photograph. (quotes courtesy of LGF readers Wyatt Earp and bcwake, respectively)

Thank you for making my point for me. You found two comments that are unacceptable. Out of how many thousands of comments? I just searched for "Wyatt Earp" and found that he/she had commented on one thread. Does that mean that "Wyatt Earp" represents all the posters at LGF? "bcwake" commented on six threads, the last time being just over two months ago. Strangely, the last time either of them commented was on the same day. Makes me think "Wyatt Earp" and "bcwake" are one and the same person.

My support email in the usual formal antique.

Sir/Madam,

Discussion and critique on the Little Green Football’s Website derives from a diverse online gathering of people who enjoy an interaction of opinion and information-trading in a free and uncensored forum. Much of the present discourse concerns subject matter that arises from social systems that indoctrinate rigid one-dimensional teachings, forbid dissent, or the questioning of the validity of the original ideologues from which they arise. The discussions are robust but do not, in my observation, descend into malignant vilification.

If the current focus appears to concentrate heavily on Islam, that is because Islam has brought itself into focus.

Adversative discussion is the customary method for democratic societies. All are welcome. None but the purblind are criticized.

Frequent Visitor
(name and address supplied)

not that I am saying LGF is evil, but
but
but
but
Behold my Underlying Truth
generally the evil tend to point out the difference between good and evil the most often. Take bin Laden and his ideas of Western infidels for example.

Your point? LGF is evil, and can be likened to bin Laden?

most often?
Actually I was talking about timing, not frequency.
Evil people are quite glad to stay quiet until they are exposed. Then they try to turn the tables.

But I do agree that they do tend to do it with greater frequency to create the illusion of being able to turn lies into truth. example: The PA

john wehr #81

"Mixing conservative ideology and subtle (or not so subtle) racism with a relatively large reader base chips away at a wider foundation of resistance against bigotry"
WTF does conservative ideology have to do with chipping away at resistance to bigotry? Are you saying that conservatives have a natural tendency toward bigotry? In my experience conservatives, who wish to apply the same standards to all peoples, are less bigoted than liberals, who prefer to excuse certain cultures or peoples from the rules of civil behavior on the grounds that they are "disadvantaged" or "vulnerable".
And wtf does a "relatively large reader base" have to do with anything? The more people who agree with an opinion, the more prone they are to racism?
fookin' moron

Neale,
I have neither the time nor the inclination to point-by-point speak to your post (Fisk you in the LGF parlance). You complain that all you see here now are racist commentaries regarding Muslims. Perhaps it's because there are not other news agencies which tilt this way? We are bombarded in the "legit" media with moral equivilancy. I'm sick of it. I have no problem seeing all of Isalm as evil. Not the people but the religion. I don't believe Islam has been hijacked at all - I think it's finally coming into it's own. The long gestation is finally over and we get to see what has been birthed. God help us all!

Merriam-Webster online:

Racism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

I guess what disturbs me most about Anil and Mike Wehr is their laziness. They use this term "racism" when they really seem to be accusing LGF of religious bigotry. I'm a Mormon--I've experienced religious bigotry first-hand, but never racism. There's a difference.

LGF targets a cancer that seems to be growing within the Islamic culture--within the religion, within the society. Is this religious bigotry? I don't think so, but I'm open to debate. Is this racist? Only a lazy fool would use that term to describe LGF.

Anil:

I have read your site and LGF and as far as I can see your problem with LGF is that Charles does not act as a moderator in the comments section and does not delete overtly racist anti-Arab comments (of which there ARE occassionally a few posted here).

However, I think you are wrong to imply that the majority of posts here are racist in nature (the ones mentioned on your site have been cherry-picked and do not represent the majority opinion), and I think you are also wrong to state that Charles has some kind of obligation to delete posts that are overtly racist. Letting a post sit does not imply implicit endorsement of it's content (isn't that obvious?)

That said, I would agree with you that the majority of posters here do not go out of their way to reign in the "nuke em till they glow" style posters, of which there are a very small number (Nastification Agenda being one of them).

John Wehr, not Mike Wehr. My mistake.

statement we can all agree on I think.

Not all Muslims are intolerant.

ok.

But that begs the question,

Q: What percentile?

A: Enough.

No, an entire religion or culture shouldn't be flamed. Someone explain that to the guys KILLING THE "INFIDELS". The people bitching we can take care with namby pamby touchy feeliness AFTER the murderers are dealt with

Wait a minute Anil, it just occured to me, what kind of socialist is going to try moderate a blog that is not his own? you have your own blog. Go moderate IT. If you disagree with SOME people then try to persuade SOME people instead of writing off the website. Fella, it seems like you want LGF to come a wholly owned subsidary of whatever site you run. And thanks for the input, but the "extremist" in LGF are LGF's problem.

#96 GoldenWebb you beat me to it. damn it.

#83 Neale,
2 things to quible with, the rest I do not have time for.

1) I NEVER said that 'most' meant Anil. I said it before, but you seem to prefer to ignore the opposing view, which invalidates your point.

2) Yes, it IS important that that quote be represented in context. Was it right after a MAINSTREAM Islamic religious authority told the 'Palestinians' to 'keep on killing,' or when we had some news appear where a LARGE group of Arab-Muslims did something hoorible? It is, by itself, inhereintly anti-Islamic. HOWEVER, I never claimed that any of those comments were right or justified, simply that they'd been cherry-picked, as you chose that one line, as with the other quote of my writings, to distort and twist to fit your own intents. We may be (opinions vary WIDELY) somewhat racist, but you, sir, are sadly heading towards an abyss of thoughtless, angry, IDIOTARIAN, and Logiclessly (I know, Anil) proven ideas.
YES, there MAY BE a problem, but YOU have proven yourselves to be MOST harmful to your own cause by deriding the rest of us for not being RADICALLY enough against such occurances.
NEVER, EVER MISREPRESENT MY WORDS. I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR AND I EXPECT TO BE TAKEN PLAINLY- TO DO OTHERWISE IS FALSE AND MAKES YOU MY ENEMY. I DO NOT LIKE TO HAVE ENEMIES, NOR DO I HAVE MANY (but 2 or 3, and all for multiple causes and reasons beyond pure emotion), BUT TO DO SO IS FALSITY, AND FALSITY IS UNACCEPTABLE. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, THEN YOUR PROBLEMS WITH LGF ARE CLEARLY ROOTED IN A PREFERENCE FOR FALSITY OVER TRUTH. I HOPE THIS IS NOT SO.

On another, cheerier, note.
GOOD NIGHT, GOOD MEN (and WOMEN). I AM OFF, FARE THEE WELL!

-Ratz

No no, GAboy, go ahead. In order to get Anil to understand an argument you have to repeat it, over and over and over, as zulubaby proved (#75).

#42 set

LOL

my thoughts exactly......

Neale (#83)

Just for starters, you seem strangely paranoid that every comment here is somehow about you. Get over yourself.

You quoted this:

#7 From what I have seen of LGFI believe that it has mostly been attacked by people who then repeat well-worn anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic points (i.e. 'Jews control the media', 'Israel drinks the blood of Palestinians', 'The Jews of Europe aren'y REALLY the Biblical jews, just Khazars- so they don't have the RIGHT to be in Israel' etc).

To which you replied:

Well, I've never seen Anil say that, or myself, or Jason, or Matt, or any others outside the LGF boards say it. As for controlling the media - from what I've read on LGF, the media is controlled by a vast left-wing anti-zionist conspiracy. Right? Wrong.

I'm confused. What are you saying? Are you saying that outside of you, Anil, Jason, and Matt, no-one else has attacked LGF with Anti-Israel and/or Anti-Semitic sentiment?

But this tends to happen only with anti-Jewish comments. The anti-Islam commentators get away with it fine. Take, for instance, the LGF regular "Nastification Agenda".

While that may be true to a certain degree, the anti-Islam commentators are commenting about the extremists of Islam. The Anti-Semites would have it that all the Jews die simply because they're Jewish. I'm Jewish. I care a lot more about defending the Jewish people than I do about defending the Islamists. Does that make me racist? I would appreciate your honest reply to that question. As to Nasty's comments, I will agree that they are often over the top. There is also a poster, Ranbutan, who occasionally veers off into Anti-Semitic rants. He hasn't been banned either. It's an open forum. Do you find his rants offensive too, or just Nasty's?

You quoted this:

#22 Perhaps the people who don't like lgf don't like it because so many of the contributors are Jewish and/or pro-Israel. Is that still okay, or is being Jewish/pro-Israel bad in itself, and a good reason for withdrawing your recommendation of lgf?

And responded with:

That's a beautiful curve ball. Accuse the MSNBC person of anti-Semitism for asking the question of whether LGF supports hate.

The irony of that statement is that, while many of the posters here are Jewish, the majority aren't.

A wonderful way to make them back down.

Well, I don't believe that Diane L. was attempting them to do anything of the sort.

And by the way - just because someone is (pro-)Jewish doesn't make them immune to being racist. It can come from the Left, the Right, the extreme and the mainstream. Sometimes I feel the problem on LGF is that the posters have been so well trained in spotting anti-Jewish racism that they over-analyse the simplest of news-stories for such messages, but as they haven't learnt yet how to spot anti-Muslim racism, it goes unnoticed.

Well-trained!? Excuse me? What the fuck do you actually think goes on here? A training camp? Over-analyse? You, Neale, are not even close to having a clue. You are light-years away, and sorry to say so, but you are starting to sound just a little like an Anti-Semite. (Which, by the way, is not something I've ever sensed from Anil). And it's not "anti-Jewish racism", it's Anti-Semitism. Got it? Don't be coy. You can use the correct term for Jew hatred. We've lived with it for a long, long time. Have you ever come to the defense of a Jew, Neale? Did you ever post on Clear Guidance, reprimanding the kidz there for speaking about how they'd like to spill the guts of the "Juicy Jewz"? Did you get in touch with the moderator of Clear Guidance, letting him know how you felt about the RACISM and Jew Hatred there?

How do you feel about this, Neale? Give the tiniest shit that this is going on with alarming frequency? Or are you more outraged by the few "anti-Muslim" commentators here? That offends you more than hate rallies? What is it? Let's hear your opinions on some real issues Neale, instead of your constant whining about LGF.

So it's okay to make racist comments, just so long as they're not as bad as on other sites? What a crock.

As bad as? I can't even be bothered to carry on replying to your post. You truly are a waste of my time. Even Anil was worth duking it out with.

This, on the site that shut-down Clearguidance. It's an all-or-nothing rule. Either you believe both LGF and Clearguidance should be protected and unmoderated, despite the comments, and that the administrators bear responsibility for the comments on their site, or you defend, to the death, the right of the sites to say it. LGF had Clearguidance shut down - is that representative of LGF's attitude to free speech?

LGF shut down Clear Guidance? You sure about that Neale? And you're insisting that LGF and Clear Guidance are on a par?

Why do people here think that post here describing various comments as "racist" are happening more frequently? It's because the attitude here is getting worse and worse. I've argued that Charles needs to do something about it, and was vilified for my efforts. It seems to me that the decent people on LGF are more willing to defend the rabble than try to do something about them.

Well for starters, I don't think about your opinion much, and I personally haven't noticed increased frequency. It's the same bunch of you that pull this number on LGF each time. Perhaps it's happening with more frequency in your circles. That I'm not sure of. Having said that, your valiant peacenik "efforts" to show us all the errors of our ways may have been "vilified" because not many people enjoy unsolicitated, creepy comments like yours, and that includes that nasty you pulled on LGF on you own site. I'm not sure why you feel that it is your right to come in here and post that nasty screed, attacking, attacking, attacking the other posters here. You're a little clumsy. A little finesse goes a long way to getting your point across without pissing people off. I don't expect you to care or understand.

Lastly, I don't recall Charles ever inviting you in here to critique his site. You have no manners. If you would like to comment on threads posted here, fine. But to come in here and stomp your filthy feet across Charles' house is very telling of your character.

If I were Charles, I would actually ban you. I honestly started out this post in an attempt to reply to your comments. I think it is clear where my patience with you ended.

Anil:

BTW, If you want to see genuine "racist" anti-Islam sentiment, as opposed to people expressing predicable and human outrage over mass murder incited by religious extremists (as you see here on LGF) then I suggest you check out

www.stopislam.com (read the Guestbook)

Should help you put things in context.

As a disclaimer to the above post, if there are typos, or any such things, please forgive me. I am tired.

One more thing that I'd like to add though, is that someone like John Wehr are exactly the type of person who really pisses me off. Who are these people who come in here, feeling perfectly justified in offering the snotty opinions about what cretins we all are, without have spent any time here at all, and without commenting on the REAL issues here, the threads, the stories, the real worries and concerns of our world?

I'm now tired and grumpy so I will indulge myself and say to all the John Wehr's out there:

Fuck you. Take your shitty opinions elsewhere. We're not interested. But thanks for the input. Don't let the doorhandle hit on the butt on your way out.

Lots of love,

z'baby

do not I repeat DO NOT attempt to go to #105 goat boy's link without the speakers muted. gaaahh that is horrible.

"do not I repeat DO NOT attempt to go to #105 goat boy's link without the speakers muted. gaaahh that is horrible."

Heh heh. See what I'm talking about? Now there's something to get offended at, Anil.

Anil tosses around words such as "bias", "intolerance", "discrimination", "extremism", and "evil", etc., without ever defining what he means.

Am I biased? Yes. I am biased against those who believe that the initiation of force is a good that will bring about peace. I am biased against those who would give up the freedoms enjoyed by America for the peace and safety of the grave. I am biased against many such ideas and ideologies.

Am I an extremist? Yes. But what do I mean by extremism? While the word can mean excessive, it also connotes the maximum; and, existing in the highest degree. This definition doesn't yet state whether it is good or bad. Extremism in the defense of freedom is not evil. An extreme of good against evil is a defensible position. The word is given its relevance by the context - it is not a necessarily derogatory term (unless you have the narrowed view of the politically correct).

Am I a discriminating person? Yes, I like to think so. But like the term "extreme", the word "discrimination" does have other meanings besides the modern racial connotation. It also means discernment, judiciousness, to distinguish, to differentiate. Again, the context determines the meaning.

Do I hate? Absolutely. I hate the avowedly anti-life philosophy of that group of Muslims generally called Islamists. I hate them because they murder innocents in the name of death (they call it Paradise). They demand human sacrifice (they call it martyrdom) - and encourage it among children who are too young and ignorant to know what is being asked of them. I hate the hypocracy preached by this death cult.

Am I intolerant? Yes. I'm intolerant of murderers. I'm intolerant of ignorance and willful blindness passing itself off as erudition. I'm intolerant of human sacrifice. I'm intolerant of collectivist thinking of any kind. I'm especially intolerant of any ideology that preaches death, death, and more death - in the name of religion, in the name of the collective, in the name of life - life after death, of course. I've become especially intolerant of those Americans' who take their life and freedoms or granted, or hate those freedoms.

If you are going to use the word evil, I suggest you define what you mean. I call evil that which is anti-life. And I am biased against it, I discriminate against it, I'm intolerant of it, and I hate it in the extreme.

83 Neale

so, im reading what I think is a well written, well reasoned post , until I click onto your referenced URL....representing an example of what you consider hate speech....

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

20 A. van Hilten 7/31/2002 09:13PM PST

Next time there's a merry Hamas get-together, the IDF should seriously consider bringing the firecrakers to the party. Is that napalm splashing through the streets of Ramallah? Hey, quick, bring out the BBQ!

........and example of hate speech that Charles allows, as opposed to the hate speech on ClearGuidance........which Charles has shut down....

and then I notice you convieniently omitted the spontaneous response of another poster immediately folllowing...

#21 moxie 7/31/2002 09:14PM PST

disgusting displays of ignorance. truly grotesque.

........thats the tone of LGF..someone says something "hateful" and one or more people often jump on it......

........you should also realize, much of the over the top comments here, are a response to the relentless, mindless, slaughter of people, perpetrated by muslims in Israel and across the world..

........and an attempt to comprehend the absence of outrage and seeming tolerance for the hateful bile that comes from Mosques throughout the Muslim world....

.........and this in the face of a world that keeps saying Islam means peace.....sp obviously an obscene distortion...

I understand many of these 'over the top" remarks as a kind of black humor....trying to contain, the irrational and uncontrollable primitivism of these slaves of allah....

(when i worked in hospital, surrounded by the sick and dying, i heard many similar insensitve remarks)

good, that people are reacting to this blogsite....that means we are making a difference.....

Understand most of us here, have been taught multiculturalism, tolerance and being non judgemental are positive desireable traits......and we also are struggling with the realization, that people want to kill us......JUST BECAUSE WE ARE THAT.

#95 NTropy

your not alone.......too bad our collective memory is so short....

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Apparently Edward Gibbon was also gravely confused in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire when he described Mohammed as a man of arms. Gibbon called him an "eloquent fanatic," said that his "operation of force and persuasion, of enthusiasm and fear, continually acted on each other till every barrier yielded to the [Muslims]," and observed that "his voice invited the Arabs to freedom and victory, to arms and rapine, to the indulgence of their darling passions in this world and the other."

Poor Gibbon. He just didn't have the benefit of a subscription to the New York Times. Now he would know that Mohammed was a seventh-century Gandhi.

And what can be said of Thomas Aquinas and Hilaire Belloc? In Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas describes Islam as a false and dangerous religion, which combines truths with "fables," twists the Old and New Testaments into a "fabrication" of Mohammed's own, and seduces "people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us."

Aquinas said Mohammed's claim as God's prophet rested on the "powers of his arms" -- not a very convincing sign of holiness since it is a sign not "lacking even to robbers and tyrants."

Nor was Aquinas impressed by Mohammed's followers: "Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower's by the violence of his arms."

Belloc said the same, writing that Islam began "with the attack of a very few thousand desert horsemen, who were as much drawn by desire for loot as by their enthusiasm for new doctrines… There was no organization, and the moment the first bands had succeeded in battle, the leaders began fighting among themselves: not only fighting, but murdering… The Mohammedan temper was not tolerant. It was, on the contrary, fanatical and bloodthirsty. It felt no respect for, nor even curiosity about, those from whom it differed. It was absurdly vain of itself, regarding with contempt the high Christian culture about it. It still so regards it even today."

Today's Western intellectuals know better. They are sure that Islam can be squeezed into their own worldview as long as everyone negotiates with Muslim countries and speaks nicely about them.

Western intellectuals have found a new totalitarianism to be dupes for, and a new outlet for hatred of their own culture. Jerry Falwell is a fool, they say. But what could be more foolish than assuming harsh truths will go way if you just ignore them?
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

........LGF is doing something right.....thats why poor Anil and others whose delusions are being shattered are getting antsy.....

they are waking up to the reality

#109 Dee Bates,
GREAT post. You are so clear headed and right on!

#104 zulubaby,
Also Great.
And you're insisting that LGF and Clear Guidance are on a par?

I was wondering where I'd find moral equivalence in that blogosphere microcosm. I think you found it for me.

Dee Bates (#109)

That is why I love having you around. You too ploome.

Here's what I hate, with good reason.

And, of course, I have to contend with this little creep, from the University of Death.

Wow, Charles, you certainly sparked off something here!

Speaking personally, LGF provides some balance for me. Reading local papers (Arab Times / Gulf News etc.) and watching local TV (Al Jazeera, MBC, Palestine TV etc.) gives me a somewhat one-sided view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It's nice to have somewhere to go where another side of the argument is presented and discussed.

I left mine:

Is Little Green Football a hate site? No. They do a community service to EXPOSE Islamists hate.
Everytime something negative is to be said about Islam, they cry "hatemonger", etc etc. What about the hatred the Israeli feel every day? What about the hatred for the Bali victims? What about the hatred for Americans?

The good defense is a strong offencs, ever heard of that quote? The Islamist will not tell you the truth... because it will cast an unfavorable light upon them. So they use code words and make the press such as yourself cast the light on the victims and make it like it's the victim that's doing the attacks. When will the media start casting the light onto the Islamists??? Ask them why do they hate us... ask them why are they bombing us?? Their true cause is to convert the entire world to Muslim, either peacefully or by sword.

You need to remove the troll's comment that LGF is a hateful site. It's not... It's only reporting what the Islamists are saying from their own mouths!

I can always tell when a thread is going to be 'intersting' when it's reached 100+ posts in less than 12 hours. Nice to see Anil linking to one of my threads, too ... anyways

re: Neale (83)

"... This is the point where you can either listen to the broader web community"

Please define 'broader web community.' Does this mean just you?

"... tone of LGF is becoming increasingly racist and do something about it"

Here we go - we're all a bunch of bigoted, hate-mongering, xenophobic racists. Why don't you define 'racism' for us. While you're at it, look up the meaning of xenophobia, too. Even bigoted (I'll help you with that one - bigoted means 'obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinion.' Are we the only bigots here?)

"Little Green Footballs A popular but controversial Warblog focusing on militant Islam and terrorism. Is this news or hate?

[Geepers' comment]
Well, it’s neither one of those things. It’s an open forum for discussion of current events. Are these people stupid or what?

[Neale's comment]
Okay Geepers, what was wrong with that sentence? It is a weblog, it is controversial, and it does focus on militant Islam and terrorism."

I don't mean to slight your deductive reasoning skills, but perhaps the last line "Is this news or hate," is the line with which he took issue - incidentally the only line you managed to miss in your reply.

[re: Clearguidance]
"So it's okay to make racist comments, just so long as they're not as bad as on other sites? What a crock."

When LGF begins to distribute videos of decapitated Muslims and talks about how we want to kill all Arabs, then you can put LGF in the same league as Clearguidance. Until then ...

"The people you are fighting against are a tiny minority sect within Islam, not a population of 1.2 billion people across over 40 countries? Does that help you?"

Wow, with that many peaceful Muslims opposing the fanatical Islamisists, we should from at least 3-4 Imams a day speaking out against terrorism. And we should hear Imams in all peace-loving Arab nations calling for peace and understanding, instead of calling for the destruction of the dog Christians and Jews.

(sound of crickets)

"Why do people here think that post here describing various comments as "racist" are happening more frequently? "

Because you people don't know the meaning of the word, apparently (see: bigot)

Here's a challenge for you guys - instead of throwing around your favorite moral-high-ground-inducing buzzwords (racist, bigot, xenophobia, prejudice) why don't you try to refute some of the facts put forth in the site. After all of your bluster and blather, Neale and Anil amount to nothing more than one massive ad hominem

W.

#81:

A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of Islamic culture is a slippery slope at best.

"A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of Western culture is a slippery slope at best."

Tell that to Amnesty International.

#83:

There is little critical examination of those articles slamming Islam here (such as those by Daniel Pipes).

If you think Daniel Pipes has ever written anything "slamming Islam", you have never read anything by Daniel Pipes. He is very careful about differentiating between the Islamists and other Muslims.

Zulubaby -- #106, spot on.

To Anil and the others who whine about the "tone" -- why not hang around and try to change the tone? Why not call out the comments you find offensive when they crop up? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, and don't think anyone but the "targets" would object.

Congratulations Charles,

You have been tagged as "controversial", the adjective most commonly used to describe anyone or any policy that is "conservative" or that offers an alternative solution.

Rarely, if ever, will you find the media refer to any democratic initiative as "controversial".

But, you are not. Reading the archives, it is evident that prior to the 11th of September, you were not a Bush supporter.

Oh what a wonderful thing is "free speech". Careful who you agree with, or you may be branded "controversial".

I just sent this to the MSNBC Best of Blogs editors:

Gentlemen,

It is with a great deal of interest that I read the detractions of Little Green Footballs that arrived in your mailbox shortly after you named it to your Best of Blogs list. Frankly, I have always found people's "righteous indignation" at the content of LGF's blog more than a little curious.

Let me state right away that I am a regular poster at LGF, using the same pseudonym you see here. Let me also admit up-front that there are posters in the forums that are anywhere from a bit misguided to complete genocidal lunatics, and all are permitted their say. If that makes LGF a "hate forum," then I believe it's time to shut down MSN Slate and MSNBC.com -- the comments sections of either make LGF look like a milquetoast scholarly discussion.

As for the entries made by Charles and Michael Johnson themselves -- the true content that LGF should be judged on -- labelling them "anti-Islam" or "hatemongering" is absurd, and reveals more about the complainers than it does about Mr. Johnson. Nowhere on his site -- not in the entries, nor in the comments -- does Charles write that all of Islam is the problem, or impugn all Muslims as terrorists. Even Anil Dash, the strident LGF detractor you mention, distances himself from that claim ([Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Mr. Johnson's "crime," in the eyes of those who accuse him of being anti-Muslim and hateful, is finding and exposing to full view the hateful, murderous rhetoric that spews forth from Muslim organizations and mainstream Muslim leaders every day -- rhetoric that is inconvenient to those who would like to simply preach their "Islam is peace" mantra, ignoring evidence to the contrary. Rejecting such tripe is not anti-Islamic or bigoted: Islam is a rich, complex religion, practiced by over a billion people, many of which use it to motivate actions that are the opposite of peaceful. Charles' "offense" is finding these people, and pointing them out for all to see; this discredits the notions that "peace" activists and the tolerance-for-everything crowd are trying to push on their audience. Far from being a site for "bigotry," LGF is actually one of the most informative and thought-provoking blogs on the Internet, a source of both information and entertainment for literally thousands of people each day. I admit it does demonstrate hatred on occasion, but the hatred is of murderous extremism and ponderous cowardice in the face of same -- and hating either is neither wrong nor immoral.

Far from being erudite or sophisticated, those who object to the well-documented expository content of LGF are doing nothing more than yelling at a man who shines a bright light into a filthy room.

My comment to MSNBC:

Amazing that you'd characterize LGF as "hateful" or "racist". You've clearly not bothered following it, or questioned the people who have characterized it as such. You said:

"This site is the focus of considerable controversy for its focus (and particulary the focus of the constituents in its comments section) on Islamic culture and dogma as the source of Islamic terror. As a popular, active, and well presented site, it is worth checking out, but some may find its content hateful or even racist."

If focusing on "Islamic culture and dogma" as a source of hatred and violence is itself "hateful or even racist", then what about the people who have blamed the west for Islamic terrorism? Is Susan Sontag an anti-American "racist"?

Anil,

You have too much time on your hands. You need to get laid.

People who give Anal the time of day:
You have even more time on your hands than Anal does. You need to smoke a joint, listen to recordings from Miles' electric era - preferably Bitches Brew - and get laid.

I struggled my way through most of these posts so I could find something to disuade me from making this post. Then I went to read Lileks. Something James and I have talked about in the past is this: while Charles does a great service and I love mommydoc and zulubaby, ratz et al. LGF is frankly too much of a warblog for my tastes nowadays. Charles, where are the cute animal pics? You used to have them. I like a little schadenfreude on my pancakes in the morning, but as a seasoning, not as the main meal. LGF is my second favorite site. But I fear we here have come to love war too much.

I love how Anil spends a full page berating those who use the word, 'idiotarian,' as it is clearly not a word found in his dictionary - then he goes on to use the word blog (also not found in any dictionary that I own) in both noun and verb form.

W.

Thank God for the Internet. At last people with an inquiring mind can research behind the headlines and find news ignored by other media sources. People no longer have to just sit there and accept everything the mainstream media decide you should know.

LGF is a warning site. It warns us of those who wish to exterminate our civilisation and enforce a brutal religious dictatorship. Intentions they themselves have openly declared. It warns us of the left's appeasement, if not open sympathy, for these same people. It warns of the worldwide violent methods employed to achieve their objectives and their very clear intensions towards whole groups of people, like the Jews.

Charles:

I have read only part of this thread this morning, and I don't have time right now to continue.

Just want to let you know that I sent an e-mail letter to bestblogs at msnbc. Of course, as you know, freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses; i.e.: it is their perogative whether they elect to publish my letter on their web site or not, and I have no control over this.

Hope to get back here later, God willing. This happened at a very inconvenient time for me, but I did my utmost to squeeze that letter in.

Tah tah for now.

#59,

I an a Jewish guilt free hedonist. I'm pro 9/11 war and believe in the goodness of free markets.

I think make love not war is a good idea. Except when there is a war on. Then it ought to be make love AND war.

Justification of hedonism is not the evil you think it is. in fact to prevent the dryness of soul asceticism causes we ought to have more of it.

Frankly, I don't have time to read the zillion posts on this thread right now, but since they fired Alan Keyes, I have no respect for MSNBC.

I know other people have commented on this, but I just was floored by this comment.

#81 John Wehr I think LGF has the potential to be dangerous. Mixing conservative ideology and subtle (or not so subtle) racism with a relatively large reader base chips away at a wider foundation of resistance against bigotry. A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of Islamic culture is a slippery slope at best.

Good grief. So we should NOT point out the moral failings of Islamic culture?

John, do you go around posting on boards with an anti-Israeli or anti-American bias and say "A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of [American] policies is a slippery slope at best?" Or, does Islam alone have special dispensation from criticism?

I'll say it.....that is idiotarian in the extreme.

And that is why you can count me as another former leftie who can no longer stand the left.

NTropy #95 You complain that all you see here now are racist commentaries regarding Muslims. Perhaps it's because there are not other news agencies which tilt this way? We are bombarded in the "legit" media with moral equivilancy. I'm sick of it. I have no problem seeing all of Isalm as evil. Not the people but the religion. I don't believe Islam has been hijacked at all - I think it's finally coming into it's own. The long gestation is finally over and we get to see what has been birthed.

Exactly. To view an ideology as inherently flawed is not racist. I think the same thing about Marxism, but even critcism of Marxism won't bring out the same leftist defenses as does criticism of Islam. Calls of racism in such matter (whether the calls are anti-islamic or anti-semetic) are intellectually lazy - if anyone disagrees with an opinion expressed here bring an argument and evidence to prove your point. No one is stopping anyone from doing so.

Neale, thanks for completely misrepresenting my post. My intention, when I wrote: Have you ever wandered into a yahoo forum?, was not to excuse any racist remarks. I wrote those words, to illustrate the fact that any peon with a computer can wander into any forum and post drivel.

Crikey! This will teach ME to go to bed and miss the party!...

"...one of my biggest detractors here is a zulubaby, who's apparently a blonde-haired white woman from south africa with a painful misunderstanding of what the word "racism" means."

Don't look now, Zulubaby, but you've been profiled. The horror! Time to get Reverend Al on the horn.

In the interim, Charles, perhaps you should ban Anil and his views, because "...if your site had no comments, it might do justice to discrediting them."

Let me get this straight. This is a forum for discussion of current events. But discussion should be controlled or eliminated altogether?

I haven't carefully read the entire thread, but I'm sure I'm not the first poster to bring up the 1st ammendment issues Anil raises with that particular nugget.

In any event, my email to MSNBC has been sent, Charles.

Oh, and davesaxy: Miles' pre-electric improvisations (both his, and those of his bandmates) are far more compelling. I can't speak to smoking a joint, since I don't use the stuff. But I am certainly willing to consider the coitus part of your advice. :-)

My letter to MSNBC's "Weblog Central":

As a daily reader and regular commenter at the Little Green Footballs site, I take exception to Anil Dash's characterization of LGF as a "hate site." Mr. Dash's main complaint seems to be that Charles Johnson rarely censors the commentary on his site, and that the articles on the site pander to anti-Muslim sentiment.

Well, on the first point, Mr. Dash is correct, that in all but the most egregious cases, Mr. Johnson lets people have their say. That's also usually the case for leftist and anti-Semitic trolls who show up on the site as well. Given the volume of commentary on the site, it would be almost impossible for Mr. Johnson to police it all, even if he chose to do so. When someone makes truly offensive comments, they usually get rebuked by the regular commenters and in truly bad cases, Mr. Johnson bans them from commenting on the site. The vast majority of commenters on LGF are NOT racists or hatemongers, and I find it offensive to find them being characterized that way.

As for the second point, Charles Johnson's article provide a public service by exposing the messages of hatred that Islamic extremists are putting forth. Like the MEMRI site, he tells us what the Muslims are saying in Arabic, rather than just the English words that are intended for Western ears. After September 11th and the recent bombing in Bali, only a fool would think that we don't need to know what the Muslims are up to. Is it inflammatory to see Muslims' pictures of their children dressed in toy suicide bombing belts? Is it pandering to post a translation of the hate-filled Friday sermons from the mainstream mosques across the Middle East? NO!! It is giving us the facts that the "Islam Is Peace" crowd would rather we ignore.

September 11th taught us the cost of ignorance of those who hate us.

Sincerely,

[My real name and address]

Somewhat off-topic, but still relevent to LGF bloggers:

The message boards over at the NPR website are a seething den of socialist hand-wringers. I know this should not come as a suprise to anyone here, but I just want to point out that there is much going on over there that desperately needs a concerted LGF fisking offensive.

I can't do it alone, folks.

124 billhedrick, I don't think this site is love of war, but fear of death. The only way to counter that possible death, is to go to the mountaintop and proclaim in a voice as loudly as possible, "hey, those guys over there want to kill us."

Anyways, Aristotle once said, we make war that we may live in peace. That's my view on war.

*Sung to the tune of "You say TO-mato, I say To-mA-to"*

"...you say "Anil," I say "ANAL," you say "war mongering, zionist, racists, hate blog" I say, "wonderfully light, witty and insightful blog," oh, let's just call Anil a Blithering Dork!"

But I fear we here have come to love war too much.

None of us love war; we just dislike being helplessly slaughtered more.

Set & Robert Crawford, I hope you are right. Charles and the majority of the anti-idiotarians here are fine fellows, but if you have a nature like mine you will agree with (IIRC) Gen Sherman who said "It is good that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow to love it." The important thing is to have a positive life, friends to love, children to care for, a God to worship. If we lose this for the quest to vitory, we've lost the reasons for our war.

Neale (#83),

From MSNBC’s Weblog Central:

Little Green Footballs A popular but controversial Warblog focusing on militant Islam and terrorism. Is this news or hate?

Well, it’s neither one of those things. It’s an open forum for discussion of current events. Are these people stupid or what?

Okay Geepers, what was wrong with that sentence? It is a weblog, it is controversial, and it does focus on militant Islam and terrorism.

You’ve fallen for a bit of fallacy. See the problem is the question posed after the stated obvious. It’s asking you to make a choice. A forced choice, with an implied intended outcome. Since it isn’t news it must be hate.

I asked if they were stupid because I think that anyone who took high school debate would recognize such a lame attempt at rhetoric for what it is. I pointed out that it’s neither one of those choices.

And even if it were hate, that in and of itself isn’t necessarily bad. I hate ignorance, I hate religious intolerance, I hate the fact that MSNBC is trying to influence the outcome of their opinion by using poor rhetoric and fallacy. I hate the fact that some people are fooled by such intentional bias.

About Neale Talbot: all I need to know about him I learned shortly after his last sputtering attack on LGF, when he described suicide bombers as "noble."

Noble.

You're a disgusting human being, Neale Talbot, and I consider it an honor to be feebly attacked by a morally empty sleaze like you.

About Anil Dash: when I was on the college debating team, my coach told me that it is a total waste of time to attempt a debate with a dishonest opponent. And Anil has quoted blatantly out of context, misrepresented others' viewpoints, twisted others' words, and refused to deal with a single substantive point raised in reply to his holier-than-thou pronouncements. At one point in our last run-in, Anil came right out and said it -- "I am a more moral person than you."

Anil, you are a deeply dishonest debater, probably because somewhere in there you realize that your arguments are specious. I will not be deleting posts or banning people on your say-so, and I sincerely hope that it drives you crazy. It won't be a very long drive.

The important thing is to have a positive life, friends to love, children to care for, a God to worship. If we lose this for the quest to vitory, we've lost the reasons for our war.

Bill, for me all this is what the war's about.

Charles, in addition to words of support, you now have another donation via amazon.com.

LGF Amazon.com Donation Link

Your site is probably one of the most important sites on the net -- don't change a thing.

And now that I have that off my chest, I want to say a very sincere thank you to our readers. Your support means more than you'll ever know.

Don't worry. I won't be changing a thing.

#124 billhedrick,

The only way to win a war is to love it while you are fighting it. War is not cold rationality.

The real test is if when the need for fighting stops do we wish to continue past the point of the enemies surrender.

Look at any of America's 20th century hot wars. WW1 to Vietnam. Once the fighting stops we prefer to give up our hatred. While the fighting is on the gooks and huns get it with both barrels.

Might I reccomend Col. Summers book "On Strategy" for a fuller exposition?

Anil,

i mentioned zulu's ethnicity as evidence that she's seen the negativity of racism firsthand, not as a veiled slam against her.

You fool know one. 'White', maybe. But blonde? That's relevant how?

Dee, #109, Hell yes! You could not have said that any better! Ploome, #111, Great post also, facts like that are still invisible to some people here.

When dissent comes from the left, it's activism. When dissent comes from the right, it's racism, xenophobia, or extremism.

I'm so glad I found Charles' site. In these troubling times, it's nice to know there are people out there who "get it." I don't know what I'd do if my only source of news and commentary was the whitewash put out by the mainstream media.

I know what I believe. What I see at LGF coincides with that belief. What I see and hear from the mainstream generally does not. I think most of the readers/posters here would agree with that.

My brief e-mail to MSNBC:

Little Green Footballs is NOT hateful in any way. I think LGF provides opinionated but accurate coverage of the many anti-Israel and anti-American actions of certain elements of the Muslim community. It certainly never condemns all Muslims, only individuals.

In a world where so much of the "regular" media is very anti-Jewish, a site like Little Green Footballs is a breath of fresh air.

I still think it's hilarious that Anil berates us for using words like, "Fisk" and "Anti-idiotarian," and then goes on to use words like 'blog' and blogosphere.'

I guess I wouldn't understand the difference, being a racist bigoted xenophobic homophobe

W.

Uh.....Billhedrik (No.138), that was'nt Sherman that said that is was Gen. Robert E. Lee (CSA). He said that at the Battle of Fredricksburg as the Yankee oppressor/invaders were being hewn down like harvest wheat before the noble rifles of the Confederate Army.

Sherman was famous for saying "General Cox, I wish you to push out upon that road until you strike the Dallas Road. Let me know the position of your head of column by a flame and smoke. Burn barns, houses, anything; but let me see from this point where you are."*

Sherman loved war in all it's shapes and forms. Lee probably did too, but was too much a gentilman to admit it openly.

* George Nichols, "The Story of the Great March"; 1865

My favorite Sherman quote, regarding reporters: "If I killed them all, there'd be news from Hell before breakfast."

Swiftsure, thanks! I felt my memory was faulty, but wasn't sure. The problem we have (especially we of the masculine persuasion) is that we do love combat as much or more than what we are putatively fighting for. We must always be watchful that we do not lose our souls in the fight.

Long Live the LGF Crusade.

#137:

None of us love war; we just dislike being helplessly slaughtered more.

Exactly. This should be the official LGF slogan. I think it's incomprehensible that people like Anil would rather be PC-and-dead than possibly-offensive-and-alive.

As far as LGF extremism, I think both Glazer/GI JOE and Nastification have toned down considerably in response to community feedback. NA in particular used to write posts that would make me physically wince, but that's no longer the case. And Glazer I'm willing to forgive a lot because his uncle was killed on 9/11.

Oh, and for those slinging it's misuse, ISLAM IS NOT A RACE. Even someone who blindly hated all Muslims could not be called "racist", because Muslims come in all the popular colors and flavors.

davsaxy (#123):

Does whacking it count?

Mine's white. Does that make me a racist, Anil?

lol.

"AM too!" "Are NOT!"

Ah, these religous wars. How sad.

What's wrong with being anti-muslim and anti-left . After all they are anti-American and Anti-Israel.

There's a few things we've been too polite to point out to you...

Thank you, I have been getting confused lately and would greatly appriciate your invaluable words of wisdom from your incredible intellect. I sometimes wonder how you can make it through the day with all the heavy thoughts in your head. Please unload them, so I can take some of the burden you carry.


I would like you to know that idiotarian is not a word. Yes, I recognize that English is a living, evolving language ... Fisk is not a transitive verb...


I had no idea that ‘idiotarian’ was not a word. I will be sure to inform the “English Police” to send out an immediate ‘email’ and ‘fax’ to anyone in the ‘blogsphere’ who uses this term. Again thank you for your missive on Mr. Fisk, I’ll be sure to email Mr. Fisk’s agent and publicist and inform them that his name has been ‘hijacked.’ I am sure he would like to know that there is a sub-culture of people that only find his work worthy of derision. Maybe the owner of this ‘blogspot’ could use the following definitions to clear up any confusion:

idoitarian- n., adj. (1) an individual who holds idiot opinions (2) description of an individual who holds idiot opinions. Based upon idiot+ -arian, first appearance 2002(?), slang. eg: The idiotarians held their conference in Beirut. Robert Fisk’s idiotarian comments were met with derision. negated with 'anti-'

fisk- vt. to fisk, fisking: the act of taking an article and pointing out the flaws and/or inconsistencies usually done in a mocking or satirical way. Based upon the name Robert Fisk, first appearance 2001(?), slang.

Complaining about the above two examples of jargon in a self-selected group makes one think you have another agenda. You weren’t calling everyone who enjoys LGF foolish or silly, which would be an ad hominin, and everyone knows you’re above that.


Those of us in the majority, who are of all political stripes, correctly see stridency and cliquish, back-slapping, jargon-laden repetitious rantings ... anyone with any decision making power about international politics suddenly gives a shit about your opinion.


So you are in the majority, so I suppose that makes me in the minority because I fail to see how pursuave your argument is. Oh yea, the argument is not this part, you are just clearing your throat and getting ready to make the court speechless. And again thank you so much for pointing out that the people “with the decision making power about international politics” do not give a shit about my opinion, which I share with a self-selected group, whose members occasionally ‘rant’ on an open forum, and all are of voting age.


We do not speak of "Coultering punditarians". Even if one lonesome loyalist ink-stained wretch felt it necessary to pander to a tiny but loud constituency ...


Aah, “Coultering punditarians,” …’leggy’… blonde …vitrolic…Sorry, I was imagining an army of Ann Coulters, pandering to the loud constituency. I fail to see the value of this paragraph here, however. I suppose you are still clearing your throat. I believe I’m getting warmer though because of the “unquestioning loyalty to a doctrine in the course of our discussion of geopolitics.” I suppose I am supposed to feel bad at this point because I use made up words and have been painted as a “lonesome, loyalist, ink-stained, wretch.” But I forgot you are above the ad hominin, and your writing is so subtle only the ‘truly-insightful’ can understand.


It's been asked why certain positions or ideas aren't represented online, or at least aren't represented well. That's similar to asking why no one is taking the time to engage the folks staffing the Lyndon Larouche...


I fail to see what Lyndon LaRouche has to do with made up words. He certianly fucked things up over in Brazil though, giving rabid speechs supporting an anti-american zealot who thinks it is a good idea for Brazil to have nuclear weapons. Oh, your saying people like LaRouche aren’t really dangerous, just annoying. I get it, the reason the ‘left’ is not represented well or at all ‘online,’ is because they(the leftists) are all making the important decisions and that it would be distracting for them to respond to any of the criticism found ‘online’ from an a group of people who are 'LaRouche-like.' Yea, I think this analogy is a bit weak. I suppose someone who could be so subtle with ‘bendy straws’ can has his off-days.


We could point out the inadequacies of various positions shouted from all over the web. That the war on terror has apparently not been successful ...


Pointing out the inadequacies is a great idea, but again didn’t you say that since these positions are well ‘ LaRoache-like’ they are not worth being pointed out. I also suppose it could be a situation of “so much crap, so little time.” I get that feeling sometimes when I sit in front of my computer, which is why I usually go to a self-selected group and enjoy the posts and sometimes learn something new and sometimes have a good laugh.

Interesting, I was going on the assumption that it was some WASP with a screw loose and within US juristiction. Thank you again for reminding me that the ‘war on terror’ could also encompass the Washington Metro area and that terorists can strike even here in the USA. Hum ‘war on terror’:

1. Disrupt stateless terrorist networks using military action
2. Freeze their financial assests and disrupt their financial networks
3. Eliminate nation states which provide aid and comfort to said networks
4. Disrupt planning and organization by capturing or killing members of terrorist cells

The enemy- n. those who would take no greater pleasure than in killing us. Syn. anti-american, islamist, anti-globalist, post-modernist

I also fail to see again what any of this has to do with jargon among a self-selected community of people on the ‘blogsphere.’ Is it more subtly, or is it that you really have no point? I was looking forward to what you had to say about the jargon-something useful that is. But alas, you are are still clearing your throat, trying to get to that dramatic close. Well at least you are consistant with the demand for precise definition. I hope ‘enemy’ helped you out.


Protocol dictates that to pose this argument, one most go into the belly of the beast ...those evildoers might feel. It's their fault for choosing to be of the same ilk as those poisonous few.


I didn’t read that protocol and what is this monster you are hunting? Which group would “their argument” come from? I didn’t see their argument above and as a matter of fact I saw nothing but some confusing sophristry. Yea, the whole subtly thing again: The beast of LGF, and the opinions expressed here, are the evil you must so bravely confront. You will show us the error of our ways. You will show us that there are those at LGF who ravings can be charactized as “undifferentiated, xenophobic dismissals of entire cultures, entire peoples, is an evil prejudice.” And to do this you will…


But what happens when faced ...


...cherry pick some comments and take them out of context ...


That's not all. They hold tightly onto their suspicions of their enemies


…and do it here as well for good measure, all because the speechless court is waiting for…


But of course, I'm a fool. Trying to engage people in dialogue ... myself up to be attacked. Some people just don't understand how foolish they look going after a self-avowed straw man. Heh.


The rather weak analogy that the ‘posters’ here at LGF are really equivalent to the Islamic extremists who are out to destroy Western civilization. You go through this rather pointless literary exercise to point out that we somehow exhibit similar behavior as those who would kill us. You have no clue about hyperbole or subtly, and I think the irony is lost on you. Then you show this sort of self-congratulatory triumphalism about your pedantic ‘bendy straws.’ Hey, you wrote the essay, for all to read, did you think it was so brilliant that no one would criticize it? If it hurt your feelings, why did you put it in a place where anyone bored enough could read it? Again back to your current essay: it displays the same triumphalism, like the words contained therein are the only words, the only authority, THE ONLY TRUTH, which can ever be spoken.

Yes, the self-selected community, which is the LGF, is a bunch of hate-mongering terrorists and we are so rabid we ‘give the finger’ to our computer screen daily and have evil and deadly plots. Thanks for pointing it out, I’ll be mending my ways.

And before I forget, do you need a throat lozenge, because it took a while for you to clear your throat.

The above in bold is the refered to essay and my comments are in italics. BTW I enjoy this site but I have few opportunities to post. My apologies that it is so long and this is my first post.

Richard

“WTF does conservative ideology have to do with chipping away at resistance to bigotry? Are you saying that conservatives have a natural tendency toward bigotry? … And wtf does a 'relatively large reader base' have to do with anything? The more people who agree with an opinion, the more prone they are to racism?”
-moose

The two are not one in the same. Putting conservative ideology and (fanaticals’s) religious bigotry in the same forum has the effect of associating the two, which I think is a pretty undesirable effect.

Having a large reader base increases the stakes; establishing a social norm for what is acceptable in comments and ideas is thus more important. I am not trying to be the thought police here, but we all should speak out for what we believe in and right wrongs if we see them. Anil’s writing has, if nothing else, made LGF defend and examine itself, undoubtedly a good thing for any growing group.

"Good grief. So we should NOT point out the moral failings of Islamic culture?

John, do you go around posting on boards with an anti-Israeli or anti-American bias and say 'A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of [American] policies is a slippery slope at best?' Or, does Islam alone have special dispensation from criticism?"
- snopes

Of course Islam has no special dispensation from criticism, and no, I don’t go around posting on anti-Israeli boards (although I suppose I should.) I do not think this weblog should be shut down, but tempered by its readers and writers to avoid the racism aka religious bigotry that has become commonplace. I am opposed to censorship of LGF comments, hoping instead readers will vocally disagree with comments and threads that strike them as inappropriate.

"I'm now tired and grumpy so I will indulge myself and say to all the John Wehr's out there:

Fuck you. Take your shitty opinions elsewhere. We're not interested. But thanks for the input. Don't let the doorhandle hit on the butt on your way out."
-zulubaby

Enough with the Ad-hominem attacks. Charles, I was very disappointed to see that you too were guilty of attacking reputations (#140) in order to discredit ideas. Such a fallacy seems out of place when making accusations of improper debate.

Just emailed MSNBC (and signed my name and address)

Little Green Footballs is definitely not a hate site, and definitely deserves to be on your Best Blogs list. It a thoughful, active, no-bullshit place where the posters, even when they disagree, treat each other with respect. It`s a place where trolls are demolished with wit, logic and facts.

I am an American living outside the US, and I find lgf an invaluable resource.

Anyone who would say that Charles and or his blog little green footballs is racist is either blind to true racism or is idealogically blinded. They use terms like racist or homophobe just to shut someone up. I think it is sad that much of what Charles links to should be on the so called major media and isn't. Everytime I hear president bush say isalm is peaceful I think of many multiple charles post showing the complete oposite. If it wasn't for LGF I would know next to nothing about the cult of death that is the palestinan society. I also wouldn't have found out about the friday sermons of "love" that the muslims in the middle east spew out week after week.

I also ask you MSNBC, with all the money and contacts at your disposal why haven't you done one segment on any of these topics?

John Wehr #81 writes:

A website that seeks to expose the moral failings of Islamic culture is a slippery slope at best.

E. Nough #121 writes:

Far from being erudite or sophisticated, those who object to the well-documented expository content of LGF are doing nothing more than yelling at a man who shines a bright light into a filthy room.

And therein lies the rub.

Those who wish to bury their heads in the sand, and pretend a vile stream of hate is not eminating from the Muslim world, will never agree with those who seek to shine a bright light on this vile stream of hate.

The morally bankrupt fall into the first camp, those who seek to make the world a better place fall into the second camp.

As long as 'moderate Muslims' remain silent in condemning such hate, places like LGF will always have a place in the world.

As long as the political and religious leaders of the Muslim world continue to spread this hate, places like LGF will always have a place in the world.

Anil #4,

I think a lot of the issues you raise are important and deserve a platform that's not tainted by bias.

Then why don't you do so? Instead of being the LGF gadfly, provide the unbiased platform you call for. Or are you afraid of where this might lead you?

I just sent the following to MSNBC, and signed my name and address:

Little Green Footballs is definitely not a hate site, and definitely deserves to be on your Best Blogs list. It a thoughful, active, no-bullshit place where the posters, even when they disagree, treat each other with respect. It`s a place where trolls are demolished with wit, logic and facts.

I am an American living outside the US, and I find lgf an invaluable resource.

Jeez, anyone ever see an MSNBC current affair chatroom?

It's like a jew-hate contest.

LGF, in its own right, never mind by comparison, is an island of civil discussion, interrupted only rarely by racist slurs, the posters of which ususally getting reprimanded.

I was DELIGHTED to send my thoughts to msnbc about 4 hrs. ago. In the time it took to shower and get the office up and running, things have been cooking at LGF!

#85 John Wehr: Actually what I HAVE noticed is that racists throw around the racist accusation more often than anyone else.

Charles, glad to know you won't be changing a thing. If Anil only managed to whip up 1/4 of the interest LGF does, he would find himself too busy to bother with the likes of us!

re: 159

"racism aka religious bigotry "

You do know that 'aka' is an acronym for "also known as?" So are you submitting to us that religious bigotry is equal to racism?

"Anil’s writing has, if nothing else, made LGF defend and examine itself, undoubtedly a good thing for any growing group"

Anil's writing is nothing more than ad hominem attacks - cherry picking and attacking 0.0001 % of the posts is not my idea of an objective analysis. You want to challenge us, try debating the issues instead of calling us racists, bigots, or xenophobes.

Your latest post even shows that you guys can't make it through a train of thought without screaming racism or bigotry.

W.

Dee Bates (109#)

Oh so well put.

Especially:

If you are going to use the word evil, I suggest you define what you mean. I call evil that which is anti-life. And I am biased against it, I discriminate against it, I'm intolerant of it, and I hate it in the extreme.

In this regard I’m proud to be biased, discriminating, intolerant and hateful.

Anil,

You need to admit to a certain level of hypocrisy. I have seen some pretty disgraceful comments on your blog which you failed to address. Even after I pointed them out you failed to repudiate them. If you deny this, I can go back to my saved copy of the topic on your blog where you and I went at it.

Ratz #55:

ORDER OF BUSINESS: WE NEED A TERM (sorry Anil for encouraging people to coin a new term) FOR LOONY/WACKY LEFT ABOVE AND BEYOND IDIOTARIAN, I FEEL THAT ONLY A SIMPLE TERM WILL ALLOW US TO PROGRESS OUR ARGUMENTS WITH THE CORRECT INFLECTION.

May I toss into consideration:

Anilly?

Letter to MSNBC

Hello

I was outraged to read your irresponsible slur against Little Green Footballs...

"As a popular, active, and well presented site, it is worth checking out, but some may find its content hateful or even racist."

Hateful and racist? I can see that all it takes is a few people who can't take criticism of Islam writing to you to have brand a website as a "hate site." Do you understand that ANYONE who consistently focuses on flaws in Islamic culture will be hit with the same charges?

Your comments are ridiculous and are beyond the pale.

John Hawkins
[Link: www.rightwingnews.com...]

Sent this this morning.

====================

Little Green Footballs is no hate site.

They give us what Fox news does. Honest reporting.

The comments are a bonus.

M. Simon

Davsaxy (#123)

I’m taking you suggestion under advisement.

You need to smoke a joint, listen to recordings from Miles' electric era - preferably Bitches Brew - and get laid.

I just hope she does too.

Here are a few "Clear Guidance" type posts from the "anti-idiotarians" here. Remember the bomb that Sharon dropped on a residential neighborhood around the third week of July? Some people relished it:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Esteban:
Great work! Only 7 civilians (4 women, 3 children) were killed. That's 3 potential suicide bombers, 4 potential mothers of suicide bombers, and one bomb master gone. This will surely be a big step towards eliminating terrorism, I expect with about 400,000 more raids like this the problem will be solved.

ben:
I have no problem with his wife and kids joining him in the sweet by-and-by; that is a consequence of a combatant seeking to hide among non-combatants, and it is an established principle of international law that the defender bears the responsibility.

Plus, it should serve as a nice deterrent to the next scumbag that takes his place.

Matt K:
I will not shed a tear over lost of "innocent" palestinian lives. I remember them celebrating in 1991, when Iraq struck Israel with its Scuds. Ten years later they celebrated September 11 carnagein New York. Remember the mob lynching two Israeli reservists in Ramallah? And the desecrated Church of Nativity in Betlehem? Let them feel the same fear and pain.

h-man:
people who get so emotional over collateral damage (posters above/UN/EU/PA spokespeople) should get a grip on themselves.

Dave N:
Sorry, but I don't feel anything for the Palestinians that died. They support and condone homicide bombings and deserve what they get (and if they receive multiple doses, so much the better).

Bossman:
All together now...

HIP, HIP, HURRAY!

Mojo:
"Nine children aged between two months and 13 years were among the 13 bystanders killed in the strike, which took place shortly after midnight."

Guess they shoulda been by-foxhole-jumpers instead of standing around a freakin' target.

BS:
"...Happy days are here again..."

I'll drink to this terrorist, and any other Hamas member (and their whole families) death anytime...

Adm. Jedidiah Steelballs, USN (Ret) :

"Loudspeakers from mosques in Gaza City and Khan Yunis called on Palestinians to demonstrate in the streets against the raid.
Many are expected to gather later on Tuesday for the Hamas leaders' funeral. "

Target rich environment! Call out the F-16's, boys, we're goin' hunting!

Q:
"'67 borders" (PLO/CNN/BBC/NPR/UN/Israeli suicide lobby misnomer) are 1949 cease-fire lines, never recognized by anyone, not corresponding to any natural or historical boundary and virtually indefensible.

Judea and Samaria are integral parts of the Land of Israel. Their loss would be equal, in meaning and results, to Czechoslovakia's loss of "Sudetenland" to Nazi Germany - and we all know what came after that.
Q then urges Israel to imitate Slobodan Milosevic.

David Gillies:
Come on, let's not beat about the bush here. So nine non-combatants died in this strike (I say nine, because if you are the wife of a terrorist, you're a combatant - likewise a bodyguard or any other adult living with scum like Shehada). So what? I didn't know any of these people. Even if I did, I probably wouldn't have liked them. Their dismemberment leaves me singularly unmoved.
The Palestinians (to some extent) and especially the radical Islamists, have demonstrated through their actions that they do not value their children as anything other than munitions in their barbaric, genocidal war against Israel and the West as a whole. Let's take them at their word.

Yossi R:
Also, it's not exactly correct to say that 14 innocent civilians were killed. . . .The wife and daughter were civilians, but not "innocent".

Coke ZB:
Massacre Shmassacre
Israel Should Massacre Palestinian Civilians

This is the title--more blood-thirsty immoral garbage follows.

Ben (again):
Why? Because the Arabs keep talking about how much they want to die.

They should thank the IDF for the opportunity to meet Allah and be martyrs.

Matt K (again):
Re #214 & @230 Henry Shieh, your last name indicates you are one of them (are you Lebanese? Or maybe "palestinian" Christian?) Thus you naturally are biased against Israel.

Ben (wow this guy has a thirst for blood):

Boo-hoo-hoo.

Some Arab civilians got killed. Did you know that yesterday a lot of innocent puppies got put to sleep at the pound?

Guess which group I feel more sympathy for.

Save your sympathy for people that have earned it.

Carl:

What the Israelis have to do is to convince the average Palestinian that the splodeydopes pose a greater threat to him than he does the Israelis. The only way I can see for the IDF to do this is through massive, utterly disproprtionate retaliation, and guaranteed first strike kills on military targets regargless of their location or the presence of Palestinian civilians.

Those who did try to disagree with these CG mirror images were shouted down, abused, referred to as "idiotarians" and the like.

That's 14 different invididual posters on one thread.

way, way late but....

Re #81:

….Few LGF readers will deny there are fanatics in the midst, but even fewer will seek to correct the errant vitriol……

This is where I call BS on you. I firmly believe the opposite to be true.

….Whether an entry is sarcastically titled "Peaceful Religion Watch" or explicitly names Islam as a "Religion of Murder," it will most likely be followed by a number of outright hateful comments without criticism.

Those “hateful comments without criticism” ?-please do show me, ‘cause he’s what I see:

"This war is not about anything other than to establish Islam as the only religion, the only way for life. We are being asked to join or die just as millions were in the years of conqest that started in the min-7th century."
#8 Athos, I think you have it exactly right about the basic goal of the islamofascists. Intimidation of the world requires "victories" over the superpower, the US.
A shorter term goal was also advocated by the hero of Global Relief, Abdullah Azzam, in saying that Muslims are duty-bound to carry the jihad into all lands that had once been Muslim but had fallen away, including Spain, Palestine, Bukhara, Lebanon, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, the Phillipines, Burma, South Yemen and Tashkent.
Global Relief has incredible nerve to demand as a freedom-of-religion right the right to support the murder of all kaffirs (that's most of us). The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
But Haddad's lawyer is dead wrong when he tries to incite the Muslim world by saying "They (the US government) fight the whole religion, the whole civilization." That is the islamofascist perspective on Islam, which considers it a religion of murder, jihad and terrorism. The normal, non-bloodthirsty Muslims think otherwise. Consider Turkey, which has a Muslim population, but has a secular state.

#174

You live with war makers you get killed when the war makers die.

Most Unfortunate

The way to prevent this sort of thing is to have the stupidstinians wear official military uniforms when on duty and to perform their duty in a designated military installation.

This tends to eliminate confusion and collateral damage.

Kisses xxxx

174:

What he neglects to mention is that the thread is 279 posts long. 14 out of 279 is 0.05%. Thanks for proving our point about cherrypicking.

What he also left out:

20 kathyn

Yes, I feel sorry that women and children were killed along with the sheikh;

30 zulubaby
"I am truly sorry for the loss of innocent lives on the Palestinian side"

38 Joel Rosenberg
"Me, I think it's sad that innocents were killed ."

82 BarCodeKing
It is sad that innocent women and children were killed in the attack

104 Amy: "... our satisfaction is tainted by the fact that a woman and several children died, too"

Even Charles chimes in with respect to this:

"Let's see if I can make my feelings clear about this.

1. The filthy mass murderer who was killed yesterday was responsible for MANY deaths of women and children. And these weren't accidental deaths. This pig deliberately plotted to kill as many innocents as possible. And he was undoubtedly plotting more slaughter. He deserved to die.

2. He was HIDING AMONG WOMEN AND CHILDREN while planning his murderous acts. THIS is a war crime.

3. It is regrettable that other people died in the attack. (He said for the Nth time.) But the BLAME is on HAMAS, not on Israel."

Also note re:
Bossman:
All together now...

HIP, HIP, HURRAY!

There is no indication that this was directed at the loss of innocent life - for all we know (and I think it is safe to assume this) he was cheering for the elimination of a renowned terrorist.

Thanks again for proving what we're all saying about cherrypicking and intellectual dishonesty

W.

Addendum to 177 and re: 174 again:

If you do a search in that thread for the word 'idiotarian,' you will only get three hits - and in none of the instances were they talking about someone who was expressing sympathy for the innocents ...

FYI

W.

Lgf a "hate" site? Thats as funny as a member of Hamas following the Geneva convention.

#174

well, see #176.

Steeleballs is off the deepend(c'mon a guy with an alias like that are you really going to take serioiusly?)

geez, a couple of days away and all hell breaks loose!

MSNBC has a blog watch thingie? How cute! Too bad their site sux as much as their crappy "news" programs. From what I've seen of their "fair, even-handed journalists," that whole organization is a bunch of anti-America nutjobs!

Ok, they were called idiots, not idiotarians. Big whup. Fact is, these trolls drew WAY fewer arrows than did those who confronted them. The vast majority of the thread was the slightly less offensive "His wife lived with her husband. His kids were living with their father. They were asking for it." If Hamas & Co blew up an IDF general's home and killed a bunch of Israeli non-combatants in the process, would you have seen the "Human shield" phony bs offered here? Nope. If you had a poll, yes or no, that asked participants "Are Israeli lives more important than Palestinian lives?"--what do you think the results would be, assuming people voted honestly?
To put it bluntly, calls to murder and butcher Palestinians are given a much gentler treatment than are honest and principled criticisms of Israeli policy.

There is too much to respond to everything here, but I want to make a few comments. I often disagreed with many of the posters here, Nastification Agenda being the fisrt one that pops into my mind. The two most common disagreements I have had are that ALL anti israeli activity is antisemtic and that ALL islam is dangerous. But even someone like Nasti who i disagree with pretty strongly I do not think is a racist or a hater. (Nasti-I hope you do not mind being my example here) I think he is someone who has taken a lot of the same facts I have and has reasonably come to a different conclusion and we both probably hope to change the others' mind.

Islam is a belief system that people are a part of by choice. Just like Communism or Libertarianism. Just like Christianity or Judaism. Just like any other belief system. All belief systems should be open to thorough criticism. There are right now many people in our universities, media, government, churches and other institutions who do not think some belief systems should be criticized. If you criticize someone who is of another belief system, expecially one not held by a powerful group, you are labeled a racist, hateful, or many other vile insults. Often your ideas and arguments are ignored or silenced rather than debated.

I think LGF serves as a useful place for this criticism. Most of the posters have thought well about what they are posting about. Occasionaly there are some here who only insult muslims or arabs and use racist language, but they are not respected by the others. That is different from when someone makes a very controversial statement like Nasti does. Nasti thinks that Islam is an inherently dangerous belief system. I think this is worng, but not hateful or racist. The appropriate response is to argue with him and show where his ideas, facts, reasoning, or conclusions are wrong. It would be easier to just label him a racist, but that would be wrong because Islam is a belief system not a race.

Muslims, just like any other group, have beliefs, many of which are different from non-muslims, and these beliefs lead them to action, many times in very evil ways. These beliefs and actions should be open to criticism just like everyone else's should be. Unfortunately a good portion of society has chosen to deny this.

Do a search for 'idiot' and there are only two references - one about Kofi Annon, and the other by Anatoli directed at Aaron.

Have you even read this thread?

Also, in response to Esteban, who posted:

"Great work! Only 7 civilians (4 women, 3 children) were killed. That's 3 potential suicide bombers, 4 potential mothers of suicide bombers, and one bomb master gone. This will surely be a big step towards eliminating terrorism, I expect with about 400,000 more raids like this the problem will be solved. "

He was called a troll by Q, and dan said:

"22 dan truly 7/22/2002 06:44PM PST

esteban, i think i can speak for everyone here by saying that when i learn of innocent palestinean civilians dying by israeli actions, my stomach drops and i feel sick. despite your glib assertions, those people did not deserve to die. "

Again - 14 out of 279 is 0.05%

W.

Actually, 14 out of 279 is 5% or .05. Must be that fuzzy math thing that your Dear Leader talks about.

Q called esteban a troll, and then went on to say that he was right. He then advocated the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank ala Slobo Milosevic.

You have not refuted my point that someone calling Sharon a war criminal will get more and fiercer criticism than someone advocating mass murders and atrocities against Palestinians.

Charles,

post the poll on the front page:

Are Israeli lives worth more than Pal Lives?

and lets have it out

I forgot to move the decimal point (14/279 = .05): 5.0% is still a small amount. My math is fine, thanks.

As far as callign Sharon a war criminal - I imagine you would not get a favorable reaction, no. Does that mean we're all racist, bigoted xenophobes now? I wonder what would happen if we went to the NPR website and said that Yasser Arafat was a war criminal - we'd probably get the same treatment

Then again, the Israelis weren't whooping it up after September 11th

W.

#177 Wayne 10/21/2002 10:37AM PST

"What he neglects to mention is that the thread is 279 posts long. 14 out of 279 is 0.05%. Thanks for proving our point about cherrypicking."

14 out of 279 is 5%, not .05%. One in twenty comments of that thread showed blatent disregard for Arab/Muslim life; hardly cherrypicking.

re: 188

See 187 - I did the calculation in my head in a hurry (14/279). I forgot to move the decimal over; how many times do I have to admit I made a mistake. 5% is still a small amount - as well, not all of the posts he referenced were cheering about the deaths of innocents.

W.

#185 greatbigjerk You have not refuted my point that someone calling Sharon a war criminal will get more and fiercer criticism than someone advocating mass murders and atrocities against Palestinians.

I think this a matter of perspective - depending on which side of the aisle you happen to be. I wouldn't dispute that this is a pro-Israel crowd, but I think the sentiment here balances out the greater societal bias against Israel, and the US for that matter. If you are looking for balance within the site itself, why don't you chime in with your own critique? As has been noted before, no one is stopping you. Apparently, the critics of LGF have enough time to read the site and complain about it, so what's the excuse? I think it is just much easier to dismiss the entire site as racist rather than intellectually deal with the critical and discerning comments made by the majority of posters here.

And I'll ask again - do all the folks who come around here with charges of racism also visit boards with a pro-Palestinian or anti-American bias and make the same charge for similar comments? Or, do you reserve your venom for this crowd alone?

#185 & 188

How's that saying go...oh yeah. "Lies, damned lies, statistics, and computer modeling". Look, I can twist things around too. 265 out of 279 means that 95% of the responses were ~not~ "relishing" the situation as you claim. I'd say that's a pretty damned good percentage.

"Are Israeli lives worth more than Pal Lives?

and lets have it out"

NO! But if Palestine can't police its own state than Israel should be able to do it for them. Palestine shouldn't be able to negotiate for land it has NO control of.

P.S. This guy:

[Link: www.traitor.us...]

is a complete tool.

Neale #83:

Belated response. Charles has not expressed tolerance of my views. In fact, he once posted a repudiation of my generalizations about "all Muslims" and put me on ban notice.

I generalize about Muslims for one simple reason: the Koran and Hadith impose JIHAD MURDER conscriptions on all Muslims. And these sources sanction a "successor" (khalifa) authority, to call to JIHAD. In case you don't understand bin Laden's reference to "80 years of humiliation" I can tell you that he was speaking about the collapse of khalifa, which his group of MURDERERS are trying to restore, by use of terror. And hundreds of millions of Muslims support al-Qaeda ut-Jihad, whether it be through open terror or challenging the American "material witness" law.

Every Muslim American generation is getting more extreme than the last. The Ohio State website of the Muslim Students Association, was closed early this year after they called for JIHAD against America. MSA terrorists are usually the children of so-called moderate Muslims. MSA is a wing of the terrorist Jamaat-i-Islami organization of Lahore, Pakistan. The Jamaati's, under the MMA banner, won the Pakistan province closest to American troops in Afghanistan. MSA/ISNA puppets have been propping the JI through contributions to the terror-charities (zakats). Read how their master in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province will treat JIHADIS "heroes" who MURDER Americans in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and then retreat to the NWFP:

See:
[Link: www.thefridaytimes.com...]
"We have to take steps to protect Pakistan's sovereignty." Interview with Maulana Fazlur Rehman.

I have determined that the MMA terrorists will control almost 19% of federally distributed foreign aid transfers to the provinces. That is: American aid to Pakistan will be used to MURDER Americans, and harbor fugitives in the NWFP and Balochistan. When I determine the exact Bush' MURDER subsidy, I will post it here.

You will have to pay attention to the MMA because, Mushareff's political puppets - the PML-Q - are currently forming an alliance with them. The Pakistan dictator's support for the PML-Q was so brazen that Pakistanis refer to them as "the King's party." Mushareff has been a terrorist all of his adult life; he is not about to change just because he duped a U.S. President.

Islamism is a genocide movement, which holds majorities in most of America's Muslim "allies" including: Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia. They present an expanding threat that must be neutralized. I believe that we have to cut the head off the snake to kill the entire body, before its poison kills freedom. It is time to treat the alleged humans who claim authority over Muslims, exactly like we would treat the pharaohs who used pan-generational slave labor, to build pyramids. In other words, I would respond to Islamist MURDER, with mortal blows against all their authorities, whether they reside in caves, or prostration-places (mosques). And I would respond in kind, to a genocide challenge.

When the MMA harbors the first MURDERER of Americans, you will abandon your current short-sighted views.

John Wehr,

How old are you? Stop being so petty. Do you have a point to make, or not?

My comment from post #106 still stands.

#193, Nasti, you are one of my favorite posters and I have to do less writing because most of what you post I would just be echoing. Keep up the good fight, the truth is just hard to accept for some folks.

Here's my letter to MSNBC:

Dear Sir:

I challenge you to find one item--just one--on Charles Johnson's blog that espouses hatred toward Islam as a whole or encourages violence toward Muslims generally. With over 4,400 items posted and counting, this should present no difficulty if LGF is as hateful as its detractors allege.

To be sure, you can find such statements in LGF's comments section, but I fail to see how that's relevant. Is the charge here that Mr. Johnson is racist by association? Anti-Semitic comments are also left occasionally; should we assume from their presence that Mr. Johnson agrees with them? Indeed, racist incitements can be found in almost any online forum, whether political or not. I doubt we would have any trouble finding a neo-Nazi chat room on AOL, but certainly we wouldn't attribute such views to AOL management. Why do so then in Mr. Johnson's case? To put it another way, why is Mr. Johnson condemned for providing the very thing for which the Internet is most often praised--a virtual, virtually uncensored space where huge numbers of people can meet and debate?

Let us be clear on this much: Since September 11, 2001, Mr. Johnson has devoted his website almost entirely to exposing the ideology of radical Islam and the acts of brutality committed in its name by adherents. Note the distinction. Radical Islam--a totalitarian cult bent on destroying the United States and already responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans--versus Islam, a religion practiced peacefully by millions. Mr. Johnson obviously appreciates the distinction; those who accuse him of racism I am less sure about.

Geez, do any of you guys have real jobs? ;)

Interesting how such a site as LGF (a) gets such interest and (b) allows such a diverse set of opinions. I don't detect that at some of the (ahem) competitors'.

and if LGF is "hateful" and "bigoted," then what of the MSNBC chatrooms, which are filled with members of the Tinfoil-Hat Brigade™?

re: 197

heh, actually I'm an engineer - admittedly, I'm a bit embarrassed at my mathematical error (re: the 5% thing). I spend my days at work designing and analyzing high-order transient circuits and I blew a simple percentage calculation ... if my colleagues found out, I'd never hear the end of it

W.

John Wehr, greatbigjerk, Anil.

I hope we agree that your repeated use of the term "racism" up to this point has been both lazy and unfair.

So maybe what we're really talking about here is religious/cultural bigotry (as I pointed out in #96 and Wayne has pointed out a couple of times since).

LGF posters criticize those elements of Islam that glorify the slaughter, torture, and disfigurement of innocents--the cult of death that seems to have fully flowered out of the blood-soaked ground of the current Palestinian Intifada. Surely you agree that this religious and cultural phenomenon is despicable, evil, and dangerous . . . that it SHOULD and CAN be legitimately criticized and ridiculed . . . that these criticisms arise out of a basic sense of moral outrage--not slavering, unthinking, benighted bigotry?

Racism? Of course not. Bigotry? No again. Tastelessness? Yeah, sure: You've been able to go back and find isolated posts in far-flung threads that seem to demonstrate a tasteless disregard for innocent life.

As Wolfsamurai pointed out, what you've been able to establish is that 95% of LGF is tasteful, well-reasoned, well-informed, and moral.

Good work. Well done. Now you have a standard to judge against. Be sure to apply that same standard to the NPR and Yahoo and Metafilter and Clearguidance chatsites that you will be crusading against in the coming days. As you consider your non-partisan crusade against tastelessness. Now that your work is accomplished here at LGF.

zulubaby (194):

No, he can't help it. I'd respond to him, but it's just piling on.

"As you consider your non-partisan crusade against tastelessness."

As you CONTINUE your non-partisan crusade, I meant to say. And it is non-partisan, right? You're not just singling out LGF and holding it to an impossibly high standard. Right?

Largely because anyone with any sense can tell that those few making nasty comments about dead Palaestinians would not engage in mass murder if handed a machine guns and pointed at a crowd of Pals who were not trying to kill him first.

There is a considerable difference between things said in a moment of high emotion and positions held as a constant.

For instance, it is a common gag in advertising these days to have a cable or telephone installer made to wait for several hours for a customer to return home so they can do their job. Just about anyone who has ever had to spend an entire day at home waiting on the appearance of service personnel can get a good laugh at this but that doesn't mean they have ill will toward cable and telephone company employees in general. The context of the situation is what makes the joke work.

What would not work is a scene in which a cable installer comes to a home and is shot dead just out of a general dislike of those in the trade. Without the setup and the turnabout element there is no humor, just mayhem.

THe IDF made a difficult decision about the importance of their target, knowing full well the possible consequences. Unlike the group the target led, which pursues civillian deaths as a primary goal, the deaths caused by the IDF were side effects rather than the sole intent. Observers who have long and helplessly watched as the toll of iinocent murdered Israelis mounted can hardly be labeled as latent killers if a few of their number get overexcited at the turnabout aspect of the event.

OTOH, almost without fail those who cry "Sharon is a war criminal!" and want to see him before the ludicrous ICC are completely sincere and unrelenting. In other words, idiotarians.

For what it's worth, until last night I had no idea what zulubaby might look like, although I kind of expected anyone dubbing themselves thus to be well endowed in the melanin department. Such things don't factor into how I view women, especially since I've already developed great affection for the only part of her I've 'seen,' the bit between her ears.

But since her background has been made an issue, I'd like to go off-topic and ask her if she's ever read Tom Sharpe's 'Riotous Assembly' and Indecent Exposure,' and if so what she thought. I've never had the chance to ask that of anyone with firsthand experience of South Africa.

greatbigjerk writes:

Q called esteban a troll, and then went on to say that he was right. He then advocated the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank ala Slobo Milosevic.

You know, it's this use of the term "ethnic cleansing" that continues to annoy me.

The Milosevic ethnic cleansing actually involved genocide and mass graves. That's what made it bad -- the mass murder that came along, not the fact that a lot of people had to move.

Other than a few nuts (Q not amongst them), I haven't heard anyone call for mass murder of the Arabs under Israeli control. (I hasten to point out that Israel can do this at any time, but will not do so -- in direct contrast to its Arab enemies.) You are deliberately cheapening the term "ethnic cleansing" to refer to a simple (if highly unpleasant) large-scale population transfer from one plot of land to another. That's not nice, and it's not fun, and I'd love to avoid it, but it most certainly is not "ethnic cleansing... [a là] Milosevic." More like the population transfers of Germans after WWII, or the India/Pakistan swap after England withdrew from there. The conflation is a completely unfair slander, and reveals quite a bit of either ignorance or bias on greatbigjerk's part.

You have not refuted my point that someone calling Sharon a war criminal will get more and fiercer criticism than someone advocating mass murders and atrocities against Palestinians.

Wow, talk about a non-sequitur.

My comment to MSNBC:

"You'd think that a professional mass-media blogger would be able to run a spell-check.

It's spelled particularly, and my television's cable box shall continue to skip from channel 33 to 35 and then to 37 to skip over your "American" News Channels."

Guys,

A friend of mine just left MSNBC because they suck. The employees are disgruntled and the company is not doing well. So MSNBC resorts to sensationalistic tactics to keep themselves on the map by getting us to respond to a stupid assertion about the best blogger site on the net. The more attention you give them by going to their stupid site, the more advertising dollars they can demand.

They're losers.

Now #155 & #173 and anyone else who cares to read my silly postings: about pot smoking and late Miles Davis. I really don't smoke pot, but I did a few times in music school when I was listening to Keith Jarret. It was great, so I assume that doing it to Miles' acid stage is just as good.

Wacking it must count, because whether or not we are getting laid, we are always doing that. That's our nature.

greatbigjerk and John Wehr,

I've repeatedly come out against the people who I disagree with when they go too far in saying all Muslims are evil. I stopped doing this with people who disagree with me, but refuse to argue rationally.

I've repeatedly pointed to the example of Turkey.

Are Israeli lives worth more than Pal Lives?

Let's see, how many Israeli mothers have sent off their children on kamikaze missions? Clearly, the paleostinians value their lives less than the Israelis do (though this does not mean that this is necessarily true).

GI JOE (#6): I think that's more people than actually watched his show. ;)

Some other commentary by greatbigjerk bothered me:

If Hamas & Co blew up an IDF general's home and killed a bunch of Israeli non-combatants in the process, would you have seen the "Human shield" phony bs offered here? Nope.

Well, if the Israeli generals knew they were specifically targeted, and intentionally lived in the highest concentrations of innocent people, then one could throw out such an accusation.

But the whole problem is that Hamas & Co. don't bother targeting military personnel; they kill all Israelis indiscriminantly, often deliberately choosing non-combatants. The presense of nearby Israeli military thereby doesn't increase the danger to the noncombatant population.

Nothing of the sort is true with the Palestinians. The Hamas murderer that the Israelis killed off knew that he was a target, and knew that by being in a populated area, he put the noncombatants around him at risk. (This is why the rules of civilized warfare require combatants to wear uniforms and be separated from noncombatants; the Palestinians violate this at every turn.) So yeah, it's reasonable to think that he was deliberately hiding amongst civilians, using them to raise the stakes in the hopes that the Israelis would show mercy and not hit him. In essense, this man was using the Israelis' mercy to his own tactical advantage -- an action as immoral as it is illegal. Gbj's attempt at drawing a morally equivalent mirror image thereby falls flat on its face.

If you had a poll, yes or no, that asked participants "Are Israeli lives more important than Palestinian lives?"--what do you think the results would be, assuming people voted honestly?

What kind of juvenile question is this? To the Israeli government, Israeli lives are certainly more important than anyone else's, including the Palestinians. (This is why people form governments and have armies and stuff.) To the Palestinian leadership, Palestinian lives should be more important -- but of course, in reality, they consider rank-and-file Palestinians to be quite expendable. If anything, it seems that Palestinian lives are more important to the Israeli government than they are to the Palestinian leadership.

Now as to what the results of gbj's suggested poll would be -- I have no idea, nor do I care. The continued existence of Israel is more important to me than the creation of yet another Arab state -- because Israel is a far better country than Arabs have ever managed to bang together -- but I can consider the two independently, without childish selections of which one I like better. As to whose lives are more important, the question is absurd.

1) #200. I never used the word racist to describe this board. My point is that this site has a number of right-wing nuts who are largely given a free pass by the silent majority (who become a LOUD majority when a leftie says something offensive).
2) Enough --205
And how do you suppose this "transfer" would be accomplished? If you guessed anything other than through a combination of military force and other forms of brutal coercion, you're a Likudnik idiotarian (there are plenty). Would you prefer the term "Massive crime against humanity?" Or, "Gigantic and barbaric violation of the human rights of millions?" Or "appalling violation of every humanitarian principle?" Geez, "ethnic cleansing" sounds like a white-wash. Or are you really so stupid as to think that forcing millions of people to abandon their ancestral homes isn't so bad? Sorry to say, but you are the ignorant and biased one. Of course, the other 97% of the world could be wrong.
3) Enough #210. Do you really think that IDF generals aren't targets? Do you want to know why they haven't been targeted? Because Hamas DOESN'T KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE! If they did, there'd be a "surgical" car bomb detonated by them within nanoseconds. In other words, IDF generals KNOW they are targets and are risking the lives of those around them. Is that a war crime? Given your "My Israel, right or wrong" approach, probably not.

I've tried to read through all the comments, but that proved difficult. I don't think this point has been brought up before, though:

When some Saudi Arabian cleric spews out a stream of anti-Semitism and incitement-to-murder, LGFers say, "Oh, look. This is the official position of the government of Saudi Arabia. They control what's said in the mosques, and they control what gets printed in the press. If they didn't approve, this would never see the light of day." And thus the ramblings of some crackpot get numbered (in our minds) among the official policies of Saudi Arabia.

This notion is a little bit simplistic, but nonetheless essentially true. The very best you can say is that calling for the murder of all Jews (say) is not deeply offensive to the Saudi regime.

And that's what would happen if Charles started drastically censoring comments. Whatever remained would be considered Charles' own opinion.

And if he cared enough to do this, he'd have to care enough to do a good job. Some comments would cause him to agonize over whether or not to let it through. "Would I be ashamed to say this?" he'd have to ask himself. "After all, it will be thought of as my own opinion."

What I'd do then, in Charles's shoes, is just to disable comments, because if anyone's going to be speaking my opinion, I'd want it to be me. (Not to mention the vast time sink.)

And if he didn't do that, if he had a light hand with the delete button, that would give Anil et al even more incentive to smear---not just the LGF commenters---but Charles personally. Because by the act of censoring, he's made the acceptable material his own.

All that said, I kind of wish there'd be more of an effort (by the "public", not Charles) to shout down the more rabid posters (Glazer, Nasty, I'm looking right at you). But Usenet experience is mixed on that tactic. Sometimes the pariah argues a bit, and then leaves in a little snit to sulk elsewhere. Sometimes his wounded pride makes him hang around and outdo his own vitriol, occasionally destroying the group in the process. It's a hard thing to judge in advance.

Charles, I'm glad you're here. Someitimes the comments get out of hand but the information you present

Ahem as I was saying, before I so rudely cut myself off: the information you present is available in few other places.

There.

Jeez, was my comment that long? I hate these tiny comment windows.

great big jerk #185,

You have not refuted my point that someone calling Sharon a war criminal will get more and fiercer criticism than someone advocating mass murders and atrocities against Palestinians.

This point does is trivial to refute. Sharon is objectively not a war criminal. Or, if he is, then we should prosecute everyone from the dead king of Jordan through the emir of Kuwait for their treatment of paleostinians (including AraRat for encouraging them to go and Islamikaze themselves).

In short, a debate about whether Sharon is a war criminal will elicit a gut reaction -which provides the "stronger and fiercer criticism" you decry- simply because Sharon is not a war criminal.

The advocation of mass murders and atrocities against paleostinians by people is something to be condemned; frequently it is condemned. But this is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact.

#211

That was one of the most vile attempts at equivilence that I've ever seen. The fact that the IDF doesn't disclose the addresses of it's generals or other officers is not even in the same ballpark as someone deliberately surrounding themself with civilians in a blantant attempt to avoid military action against them. All I take away from your little rant is that you think that the IDF isn't being fair to Hamas because it's not making itself an easy target for terror attacks. Honestly, are you stupid or just deluded?

Richard (#148)
Don’t Apologize. Good Stuff.

And

Wayne (#189)
Boy their quick to fact check the one instance when it’s in their favor. The other 99 times (well maybe nobody will notice, and if they do just change the subject.) By admitting your wrong and correcting it you’re a better person than John Wehr will ever be.

I sent an email. Little baby libs can't stomach the real world or the truth, so they promote a "fix" of holding hands, singing campfire songs, and pretending there is no right or wrong. It will come around....

greatbigjerk #211,

My point is that this site has a number of right-wing nuts who are largely given a free pass by the silent majority

Actually, no. There are a number of self-identified lefties (Ratz, Cate, etc). There are a number of former lefties who still believe in some leftie causes (myself among others). We do have vigorous debate about all kinds of issues - I remember a long one about the benefits of reforming the school system vs taking money away from it. We disagree about many, many things.

And how do you suppose this "transfer" would be accomplished? If you guessed anything other than through a combination of military force and other forms of brutal coercion, you're a Likudnik idiotarian (there are plenty).

Hey jerk, what stopped the war between Turkey and Greece (early 20th c)? What happened in Lithuania as the Red Army began to come? How did the Japanese make it back from South Korea after losing WWII?

Or are you really so stupid as to think that forcing millions of people to abandon their ancestral homes isn't so bad?

So, are the people in the refugee camps in their ancestral homes now? Or will they be in their ancestral homes only once they take the key that their great-great-grandfather had for his house in Al Quds (which may no longer even exist)?

My ancestral home in Morocco has long ago been filled with some Muslim or another. Where are your tears for me?

Sorry to say, but you are the ignorant and biased one. Of course, the other 97% of the world could be wrong.

You mean like they're wrong for supporting the paleostinians? Yup, they could be wrong.

I'm afraid that the ad hominem attacks do little to advance your cause, jerk.

Geepers: He made a math error. I have done the same thing. Can I move back into the realm of good people now?

Ah, greatbigjerk, you're finally honest enough to admit what Anil and John Wehr couldn't: that this isn't about racism or bigotry or hate or (substitute whatever loaded buzzword you want). It's the RIGHT-WING "nuts" that you object to. This site is too CONSERVATIVE.

So first Anil tosses the "racism" bomb, but it fails to explode (actually, we just tossed it back to him. And it seems to be slowly but surely exploding in his face). Then John Wehr comes along and modifies the accusation: it's the "bigotry" that's bothering them. But this is extremely shaky ground, quickly abandoned. Then greatbigjerk retreats even further; he digs up a few senseless and tasteless posts that demonstrate nothing except a failure of sensitivity and tact. But wait: so what if every once in a while a post degenerates into childish name-calling or macho chest-thumping? This proves nothing except that LGF occasionally falls short of some kind of unattainable standard of perfection. Wow, big news.

Now LGF is too conservative. As opposed to what other blogs--Reynolds, Sullivan, Taranto, Blair, Yourish?

Anil's original argument collapsed so quickly it makes my head spin.

John Wehr,

I am opposed to censorship of LGF comments, hoping instead readers will vocally disagree with comments and threads that strike them as inappropriate.

What of the many readers who do do this? It seems like you've drawn your conclusions from a small sample of all threads. I know that for a while I was feeling as though LGF had been hijacked by bigots, but eventually a bunch of folks argued them into (Internet) oblivion. Charles threatened to ban folks who were going too far. I think you need to inform yourself better before attacking the character of a site you barely know. I don't think I would do the same at your site (if it even allows comments - haven't been there).

#215
I'll disregard your ad hominem smear and focus on the issues. People are assuming the guy was hiding behind civilians. Why is that? Correctly or incorrectly, the Pals view Sharon and the IDF as ruthless and perfectly willing to kill civilians. You and the Israelis may view Sharon and the IDF differently, but it shouldn't surprise you that the Pals feel differently. Again, I'm not arguing that they're right--only that they have a much less charitable view of the Israelis than you do. Now, if this guy was living openly in this area, the "Human Shield" argument would have some validity. However, this guy was an evil pig, not a moron. He knew the IDF would snuff him the first chance they got. He wasn't hiding behind these people--the IDF wasn't supposed to know where he was in the first place. He was putting the people around him in the same kind of peril that an IDF general puts his family in. To put it another way: if you were an IDF general in Hamas' crosshairs right now, would you live with your family in a residential neighborhood or would you hole up in a bunker?
Here's what the "Human Shield" rhetoric was about--it's about giving Israel a blank check to do whatever the Hell it wants to the Pals. Was the guy partially responsible for putting his high-target ass among civilians? Yes. Was Israel responsible for killing the people. Yes. Hamas did not kill those people--Israel did. Period. The U.S. is responsible for every person killed by US weapons in Afghanistan. Did the US want to kill civilians? No. Were their deaths a crime? Not if they were unavoidable and necessary. If killing this guy and those around him saves more lives than it takes, then you have a plausible argument that it wasn't immoral. However, Israel still remains responsible. The US was responsible for Dresden and Hiroshima. The moral weight falls on the shoulders of the person taking human life. To argue that Israel wasn't responsible for killing civilians when it dropped a 2000lb bomb on an apartment building is a pure idiocy that rivals that of the "root causes" arguments of the indecent lefties like Pilger, Fisk, Chomsky, etc.

greatbigjerk (#211)

Good handle :-)

My point is that this site has a number of right-wing nuts who are largely given a free pass by the silent majority (who become a LOUD majority when a leftie says something offensive).

I know, it's positively a scandal that Charles lets those awful right-wingers post here.

I AM APPALLED.

#218
Put up or shut up. Explain how using violence to evict the Pals is anything other than a gross violation of human rights. You can't because it isn't. They live there. The day Israel takes such a step is the day Israel fails to be worth saving.
As far as your Moroccan home is concerned, were you evicted by a bulldozer and a tank? Didn't think so. Sorry to say, but the Palestinians have a superior claim to the Gaza and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria to the Likudniks). Forcible eviction of millions would violate every standard and principle of human decency. Even if Israel does it.

#221&223
Look, I've got no problem with conservative ideas. I should have been more specific. Instead of "right-wing nuts" I should have said militaristic blood-thirsty advocates of state-sponsored murder. Now, I don't apply this to people who think we should seek forcible regime change in Iraq. I use it to those who think Israel should exterminate the Pals, or that the US should exterminate the Muslims, or those who limit themselves to the more modest goal of 100 Million. If you want to ridicule the UN--I'm with you. If you think Mary Robinson and the ICC are a couple of jokes, I'm down with that too. However, those who cry out for Muslims to renounce those advocating hatred for infidels really ought to do the same when hate-mongers spout off in their midst. GI Joe et al give conservatives a bad name.

This may have gone on far too long already, but way, way back I said something about hoping to see signs of moderation among mainstream Muslims. I suggested such news would be welcome by most LGF'ers. Ask and ye shall receive:

"Indonesia's moderate Muslim organisations demanded today that authorities crack down against religious extremists, who they said represent a fringe minority among the country's 170 million Muslims.

Former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid said he believed that Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of a group suspected in last week's Bali bombing, should have been arrested long ago.

"I believe that Bashir is a terrorist," Wahid said in a radio interview".

[Link: www.smh.com.au...] (via Instapundit)

This is good. More would be better.

Much of what has been called "hate" over the last 200+ posts is really the rejection of some terrifically bad ideas. All people of good will should join in discrediting an ideology of terror. It is a moral necessity to oppose the unconscionable. This is not bigotry but the very essence of reason.

Also, we ought to agree once and for all that Islamism is a creed, not a race. Race is immutable; it cannot be debated, adopted or abandoned. Opposition to radical islam is no more racist than opposition to nazism or communism. This should go without saying, but some of the brethren seem particularly confused.

greatbigjerk #222,

I suppose that you are referring to me. I would note that I did not use ad hominem attacks - you were the one choosing to post under the name "jerk".

Now to the substance:

He knew the IDF would snuff him the first chance they got. He wasn't hiding behind these people--the IDF wasn't supposed to know where he was in the first place.

Actually, this is factually inaccurate. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has this to say:

The IDF and the ISA stated that if their information had indicated with certainty the presence of innocent civilians in Shehadeh's vicinity, the timing or the method of the action would have been changed, as was done a number of times in the past.

I believe that the number of times the operation was called off was in the low teens (maybe 13?). If the Israelis were so cavalier about civilian casualties, why didn't they go ahead any of the other times? In many cases, the IDF does have a very good knowledge of where the terrorists are - like Sheikh Nasrallah. But they keep a number of civilian shields with them at all times to deter attacks - and this is a known fact.

Was the guy partially responsible for putting his high-target ass among civilians? Yes. Was Israel responsible for killing the people. Yes. Hamas did not kill those people--Israel did.

Actually, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention you are WRONG. Israel is not wrong for killing a military opponent who arrays himself in non-military garb and who cohabits in an area with a considerable civilian population.

Your comparison with the generals in the IDF is a false one, as I am sure you suspect. When the generals are conducting war plans, etc, my guess is that they're doing it from military bases, not from their homes. My guess is that that's not the case for Shehadeh.

Killing a general when he's at home having a coffee is an atrocity - just like killing Ze'evi was (though he wasn't a general, he was a civilian MK). Killing a general in a military base is just fine according to the laws of war. Tell all the paleostinian generals to line up in their military bases and we'll agree on everything.

#227

You'll note I was referring to post #215, by wolfsamurai.

Your invocation of the 4th GC is a bit spurious. Yes, this guy was fair game. I've never pretended otherwise. But let's be honest: if you drop a bomb on an apartment building, you sure as hell are responsible for what happens. Israel was responsible for what it did--the only question is whether it was a defensible and moral thing to do. Responsibility and reprehensibility are two different things. To pretend that Israel bears NO responsibility is facetious.
As far as your first point is concerned, I just don't buy it, nor do I buy the IDF's argument that it lacked certainty that there were civilians around. They dropped a 2000lb bomb on an apartment building. They knew civilians would be killed. It's common fricking sense.
Let's put it this way: if someone told this guy that the Israelis knew he was there, what do you suppose he would have done? My money's on "grab his family and run." BTW, do you think they haven't killed Nasrallah because of human shields or because they don't want to fight a two-front war?

#205 E. Nough

b IF ANYONE WANT TO FIND ETHNIC CLEANSING.......FIND JEWS IN IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA, JORDAN, EGYPT....

b WHERE JEWS HAVE BEEN SINCE BIBLICAL TIMES..

John Wehr (#219)

Geepers: He made a math error. I have done the same thing. Can I move back into the realm of good people now?

I don’t know. Can you? That’s not for me to decide.
My contention is with the fact that you choose to deride rather than correct a factual error. I’m pretty certain from his response that if you would have said “Hey, Wayne that should be 5%.” He would have replied “Hey, your right. Thanks.” Instead you seem to think that because he made a mathematical error that somehow proves your point. It doesn’t. And by pointing out again that Wayne made a mistake doesn’t qualify you for admitting to a mistake and correcting it. That just proves my point that you are petty and not on a par with him.

im so sick and tired of having Jews ACCUSED of what arabs are DOING....

greatbigjerk writes in #211:

And how do you suppose this "transfer" would be accomplished?

By providing the Arabs with transportation, offering compensation, and clearing the rest at gunpoint. I'm guessing that a lot would be willing to leave just to get out of the warzone. Otherwise, the same way the Germans were shoved out of France and Poland.

If you guessed anything other than through a combination of military force and other forms of brutal coercion,

I'm guessing that's exactly what it will take, for some. That's why I don't like the option. I'd just love to see other choices, aside from "Israelis surrender and die." The Arabs seem singularly unwilling to provide any.

Would you prefer the term "Massive crime against humanity?" Or, "Gigantic and barbaric violation of the human rights of millions?" Or "appalling violation of every humanitarian principle?"

Oh, spare me. There is no crime against humanity, gigantic and barbaric (really now) violations of the human rights of millions, or any other such phantom terrors. People who lost a war lose land. Story as old as dirt.

Or are you really so stupid as to think that forcing millions of people to abandon their ancestral homes isn't so bad?

Isn't so bad as what? Yes, it sucks, but it's a helluvalot better than what Arabs have planned for the Jews. And please -- "ancestral homes"? Their "ancestral homes" are built and supported by the United Nations.

Yes, it's bad. No, it's not equivalent to mass murder and genocide. Yes, it's heartbreaking. No, it's not a crime against humanity. Yes, it's to be avoided if practical. No, the UN doesn't get to decide what's practical.

Do you really think that IDF generals aren't targets? Do you want to know why they haven't been targeted? Because Hamas DOESN'T KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE! If they did, there'd be a "surgical" car bomb detonated by them within nanoseconds.

I doubt it'd be that "surgical." Hamas is not big on avoiding civilian casualties.

In other words, IDF generals KNOW they are targets and are risking the lives of those around them.

You know, gbj, the more you YELL, the dumber you sound. I have yet to hear of a single Israeli general deliberately targeted by the Hamas, much less successfully hit. Every time the noble Palestinian freedom fighters kill people, it always seems to be the tactically invaluable bus riders and ever-dangerous pizza eaters. So no, I don't believe that Israeli generals are targets in this -- certainly not exclusive targets. Being near them is no more dangerous than being in a dance club.

This is in direct contrast to Palestinian methods of fighting: the noble freedom fighters make no effort to remove civilians (actually keeping them around, riding in ambulances, shooting from behind children), and dress themselves as civilians when using live fire against (clearly uniformed) Israeli soldiers. The senior Hamas officials, knowing that they are combatants targeted by the Israeli military which knows who they are and has means of hitting them, continue to expose innocents to danger with the specific goal of deterring Israeli attacks on their person. That is a clear war crime; the equivalent of putting a command bunker in a school basement. And your inept attempts at drawing morally obtuse equivalencies between the two are getting quite tiresome.

Anil, take note:

You could learn a few things from greatbigjerk (#225). He focuses laser-like on specific issues. He tells us where he STANDS and where he's COMING FROM. He frames the debate by highlighting points of agreement, so that people can stand on a common foundation as they duke it out. He responds to specific points. He answers direct questions.

In other words, he plays fair. Unlike you, Anil. You of all people should be able to play by these rules. You have you're own blog, for Pete's sake!

#224 Greatbigjerk,

How about all the Jews who were kicked out of Egypt when President Nasser came into power?
My parents among them, by the way.
Does that mean they have a "superior claim" to their homes? Does that mean they should wage war against the "occupiers"? And, have any of them, thus far?

From the website, [Link: www.hsje.org...]

"According to official Egyptian documents, four specific kinds of measure directly and radically affected the rights, status and very existence of many Jews in Egypt. These were: police detention; sequestration of businesses and property; explusion from the country; and promulgation of a new statute under which Jews were deprived of citizenship."

Note that this took place beginning in 1956.

greatbigjerk #224,

Put up or shut up. Explain how using violence to evict the Pals is anything other than a gross violation of human rights.

So when the war between Turkey and Greece was stopped with a population transfer and this resulted in absolute peace, was it a gross violation of human rights? Also resulted in a Peace Prize, back when it actually meant something. Population transfer, historically, has been fairly successful at stopping conflicts. For example, the fact that there are no Japanese in Korea is not a historical accident.

Thanks for the "Put up or shut up" - would it hurt you to be a little bit less insulting?

They live there.

They didn't always live there. Before 1948, they usually called themselves Southern Syrians. For economic reasons, most of them migrated there during the 1920s-40s. Anyway, people living somewhere has never stopped anyone at all historically.

The day Israel takes such a step is the day Israel fails to be worth saving.

Actually, no. That's the day Israel is actually saved from having daily attacks on her newly safe and secure borders. The Jordanians are pretty good about stopping cross-border terrorism and quite adept at stopping the paleostinians.

As far as your Moroccan home is concerned, were you evicted by a bulldozer and a tank? Didn't think so.

What do you know about the Arab evictions of Jews from the Arab world? My mother's best friend, as a girl of about six, hid behind the butcher in her village because he had a gun. The other Jews in the village were burned alive at the stake as the villagers danced and sang - kind of like the savages who danced after 9/11.

An eviction that kills one is considerably more effective than an eviction with a mere tank and bulldozer, would you not agree?

Sorry to say, but the Palestinians have a superior claim to the Gaza and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria to the Likudniks).

What claim is that?

Forcible eviction of millions would violate every standard and principle of human decency. Even if Israel does it.

You mean like when Kuwait did it in the 1990s? Or Jordan in the 1970s?

Or do you mean the population transfers that happened when the allies were victorious and many Germans were sent back to Germany after WWII? Or how about the Japanese sent back from the Korean peninsula?

Both positive and negative examples exist for you.

gbj writes some more in #215

People are assuming the guy was hiding behind civilians. Why is that?

Because it is consistent with Palestinian tactics and propaganda, not to mention general Arab military tactics against the West.

If the Palestinians, including this man, had regular military bases and command posts away from populated areas, and limited their combat operations to those, the Israelis wouldn't hit their civilian cities, because there would be no need.

Of course, in that case, the Palestinians would lose pretty quickly, which is something of an inconvenience to them. So they prefer to hide behind civilians for tactical advantage. This is a war crime on par with genocide.

Correctly or incorrectly, the Pals view Sharon and the IDF as ruthless and perfectly willing to kill civilians. You and the Israelis may view Sharon and the IDF differently, but it shouldn't surprise you that the Pals feel differently.

Wrong. The Palestinians are quite well-aware that Sharon and the IDF are not ruthless and perfectly willing to kill civilians, which is why they dress up as, and hide behind, civilians in the first place. If they were right, their tactics would be useless -- and all their civilians would have died a long time ago. This is not a difficult concept to master.

Again, I'm not arguing that they're right--only that they have a much less charitable view of the Israelis than you do.

This isn't about charity -- it's perfectly verifiable. I doubt the Palestinians are as stupid as you make them out to be above.

However, this guy was an evil pig, not a moron. He knew the IDF would snuff him the first chance they got. He wasn't hiding behind these people--the IDF wasn't supposed to know where he was in the first place. He was putting the people around him in the same kind of peril that an IDF general puts his family in.

You're right on one score: the man wasn't a moron. And I'm sure he knew perfectly well that there were spies around him, that the Israelis would find out where he lived, and that he'd be a target. (You don't get to his position by being naive.)

He also knew that the Israelis have a history of assassinating senior Palestinian terrorists, and doing so successfully. (The Arabs do not have a similar history of assassinating Israeli generals. They only seem to excel at killing unarmed innocents.)

So yes, the man knew that he was putting his family and neighbors in peril -- he was counting on that to deter Israel's attack on him.

To put it another way: if you were an IDF general in Hamas' crosshairs right now, would you live with your family in a residential neighborhood or would you hole up in a bunker?

If I were an Israeli general, and knew that someone was out to get me, and had a history of using explosives to kill its enemies -- hell yes I would stay near a military bunker, and keep my family far away. But this isn't how the Arabs operate -- I daresay they'd probably target the family, or maybe a shopping mall on the other side of the country.

Here's what the "Human Shield" rhetoric was about--it's about giving Israel a blank check to do whatever the Hell it wants to the Pals.

No, it isn't.

Was the guy partially responsible for putting his high-target ass among civilians? Yes. Was Israel responsible for killing the people. Yes.

Correct on both counts. I'm not sure the Israelis intended to cause the death toll that they did, but that's irrelevant. In any case, the Hamas man was a military target, and therefore a legitimate target for killing. The civilian deaths around him are regrettable, but they are part of war. Unlike the Arabs, the Israelis didn't plan them, they didn't celebrate them, and they have always tried and will try to avoid similar deaths in the future. But sometimes, they won't be able to avoid them, and I won't condemn them for it. Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad -- all of them can stop this carnage at will, if not by ending their terror campaign, then at least by exiting the populated areas and setting up base camps outside the cities. Instead of fighting in the slums of Jenin and the streets of Ramallah, they could go out into the open battlefield. Of course, they'd lose instantly, so they won't do this; but that only demonstrates their depravity: they surround themselves with civilians for tactical advantage. Anything that happens to those civilians is therefore on the Palestinian leadership's own cloth-covered heads.

The U.S. is responsible for every person killed by US weapons in Afghanistan. Did the US want to kill civilians? No. Were their deaths a crime? Not if they were unavoidable and necessary.

So if the Taliban parked an anti-aircraft rocket launcher in a residential area of Kandahar, and the Americans bomb it and kill civilians in the process, who is responsible? I'd place the blame on the Taliban -- they knew there were civilians in the area, and placed the launcher there specifically to make Americans heistant to fire on it. Who is to define "unavoidable and unnecessary"? I think "unnecessary" is a given here -- surely no one benefited from the civilian deaths (except, perhaps, for the Taliban propagandists). But was it avoidable? From the U.S. perspective, maybe, depending on just how important it was to remove that rocket launcher. From the Taliban perspective, definitely, because they could have moved it away from civilians. Who is responsible for the deaths? I lay blame on the Taliban.

So it is in the West Bank. The Palestinian fighters mingle with civilians, trying to blend in specifically because they don't think the Israelis will readily shoot at civilians. (So much for the "ruthless IDF.") With the Israeli military now unable to separate civilians from combatants, it has to suspect every civilian of being a combatant, and treat him as such. The responsibility for that lies with the Palestinian fighters. End of story.

greatbigjerk writes in #224

Explain how using violence to evict the Pals is anything other than a gross violation of human rights.

Actually, the onus is on you to explain how evicting the Arabs from the West Bank is a violation of human rights. (Which rights?) Moreover, you have to explain why the Israelis should put the supposed human rights of the Arabs above their own self-evident right not to be killed.

You can't because it isn't. They live there.

Yes, they do. And if they are moved out, they will live somewhere else. So?

People are evicted -- on scales large and small -- all the time. The Arabs fought several genocidal wars with Israel, and lost them all. Even if the West Bank was some kind of "ancestral home" to them -- and it isn't -- they lost the right to it back in 1967. They continue to live there at Israeli sufferance, precisely because the Israelis are a superior, more merciful society than anything in Araby.

The day Israel takes such a step is the day Israel fails to be worth saving.

According to which measure? I think that as long as Israel keeps a modern, democratic society that protects Jews worldwide from Holocaust II, it's worth saving, regardless of whether they step on any Arab toes.

Also, by your own measure, Palestinian society hasn't been "worth saving" since... well, ever.

#222

How about you actually read what I wrote and stop putting words in my mouth. I never argued that the Israeli bomb didn't kill civilians. And in your regards to trying to completely disavow Hamas of any responsibility, that's just ridiculous. Maybe if *gasp* Hamas didn't have a habit of blowing up innocent civilians on their own, the IDF might not have felt that they had to take this guy out with a 2000lb bomb. The Israelies dropped it, but if this guy didn't get his jollies from blowing up Israelies to begin with it never would have happen. Hamas is the root cause of this incident and to try and claim otherwise is to submit to the delusions that the loony left is blinding itself with.

And incidentally, I have no trouble imagining that someone who was responsible for the deaths of civilians might hide himself in the midst of civilians to insure that the IDF wouldn't come after him. But that's what I get for using that primitive knot on top of my spine. You might want to try using yours and see where it gets you.

What does this mean in GBJ's comments in [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

militaristic blood-thirsty advocates of state-sponsored murder

Does this apply to, say, Hamas? Or does it only apply to right-wing policies? (I am assuming that GBJ would admit that Hamas is not right wing.)

Dear Mr. Femia

I realize that you must be fairly busy. I find it a little hard to believe, however, that you or your staff can't devote 30 minutes or so at LGF and come to a reasonable conclusion on your own.

Mr. Dash could charitably be called a "lefty", and he has a leftist axe to grind. Relying on his characterization of Charles Johnson’s blog hardly seems equitable.

I am a regular reader of LGF, and I weigh in regularly in the comments section. Those who regularly sound off at LGF are certainly opinionated, but far from hateful. Extremists, whatever their stripe, are taken to task or shouted down by other readers.

Further, ANYONE making assertions had better have the facts to back them up. I, for example, have been put through the LGF grinder for making statements based on a misunderstanding of a particular issue. The “grinding” was not unkind or mean-spirited. It was firm, and well-supported by documentation. In short, I learned something from it.

I believe the number of items in the LGF comments section is somewhere in excess of 44,000. Even if he wanted to, Mr. Johnson would never be able to monitor every last post for objectionable content. Fortunately, the regular LGFers take it upon themselves to deal appropriately with the “trolls”.

When it comes to the issues of militant Islam, and the war on terror, LGF is decidedly hawkish. However, anyone who disagrees is invited to do so. Dissent is welcomed, anyone who wants a soapbox is provided with one.

In short, LGF is a forum for open discussion of current events. Anyone can take part, and all views are represented.

“Is Little Green Footballs too hateful for the Best of Blogs list?” I hope you won’t rely on Mr. Dash to tell you where I stand.

Regards,

(Real name & address)

I would say something about Anvil and GreatBigJerk (never has a blog name been more appropriate!), but the rest of you have already said it for me and the only coments I can add would be obsceneities! I just have one question for zulubaby. Are you a blonde? as Anvil alleges all the way back in #4. Tell me it is not so, that you are a beautiful dark-haired
Lady!

He focuses laser-like on specific issues. He tells us where he STANDS and where he's COMING FROM. He frames the debate by highlighting points of agreement, so that people can stand on a common foundation as they duke it out. He responds to specific points. He answers direct questions

Um, I'd answer any direct questions that aren't from people that either call me names or accuse me of being an anti-semite. FWIW, I pretty much agree that islamist theocracies are evil and that we should pursue their replacements with democracies. I think the most effective tactics would be economic pressure; That's what's worked most effectively in the historical parallels that I've seen.

Anil:

I rather beg to differ - we've tried economic sanctions on Iraq for 11 years, and all Saddam does is starve his own people while he builds palaces.

Sanctions on North Korea haven't worked either. The people starve, while Kim Il Jung works on building nukes.

Sanctions in South Africa worked, but you had the advantage of an in-country opposition with a charismatic leader, any equivalent of which has been eliminated in Iraq and North Korea.

Seems to me appealing to the better instincts of a non-elected 'president-for-life' by putting hardship on his people just makes it harder on his people, and not on the despot involved. HE won't miss a meal if his people starve.

Sometimes, sadly, force is the best option. Not necessarily the most desireable one, but the one with the best chance of sucess with the least loss of life in the shortest amount of time. How many lives have our sanctions cost in Iraq? Or North Korea?

But it's what we try first - and we already have with Iraq and NK...

J.

Anil #242,

I think the most effective tactics would be economic pressure; That's what's worked most effectively in the historical parallels that I've seen.

Out of curiousity which parallels are those?

The Cold War is the only one that comes to mind.

A list of some autocracies that have not yet tumbled despite economic pressures includes many of these. Franco's waited until he died. Castro's is still going strong (well, after a manner of speaking). Mao's is still going. Pol Pot ran the show for a bit. Kim Il Sung/Kim Jong Il have resisted quite a bit of economic pressure.

Most autocracies, historically, have tumbled for military reasons. The Czar of Russia. Hitler. Mussolini. Hirohito. The Shah of Iran. Milosevic.

GBJ:

Let's see if I can simplify. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are damn clear that they intend to wipe Israel and its people off the face of the earth. I would argue the PA is in the same bunch, although it mouths pieties to the contrary that no one believes (check out their "constitution"). Much of the Palestinian population clearly agrees with them. All of their actions appear designed with this goal in mind -- from the suicide bombers to the cheering terrorist murder to the lies to the death-brainwashing and hatred.

To my way of thinking, if I'm an Israeli, I am perfectly in my rights to defend myself any way I can. I could easily eliminate these homicidal people bent on my destruction. But I happen to think that's wrong. I'll go after the people directly responsible for murdering my countrymen, women and children. I would like to make peace with them, but they do not want it. So anything I do short of killing all Palestinians -- with the likelihood that most of these killings will be of people that would murder me in a second -- makes me morally superior. You cannot live across open borders with people whose goal in life is to murder you.
I'm sympathetic to their desire for their own land; I'm sickened at the way they are pursuing their cause.

You argue as if the Israel and Palestinian positions are morally equivalent. You are wrong. The Palestinian position is morally evil -- the desire to use murder and terror to clear a population from land you desire. (And Anil, if you are reading this, this is an appropriate use of that phrase, unlike your cheap attack on LGF under this same "evil" conceit.) GBJ, you should be grilling Palestinians and their supporters for their morality and behavior, not Israel.

E.nough, WolfSamurai, Ariel, ploome - you guys are part of the heart of LGF. You're awesome in action.

Just the facts,

Thanks. *Blushes*. I only try to live up to the others.

Just the Facts (#245)

I love this:

I'm sympathetic to their desire for their own land; I'm sickened at the way they are pursuing their cause.

That is very well put, and how I feel too.

I'm sympathetic to their desire for their own land; I'm sickened at the way they are pursuing their cause.

Ah, but there's the rub: the land they crave is not theirs.

Their "cause" itself is immoral. That is why, their methods span the range from nauseating to horrifying, but never cross the border into even marginally acceptable.

This is pretty god damn sad. People have responded by comparing the Palestinians living in their family homes to Nazi invaders and have cried "But what about what the Arabs did!!!" Well, if the Israelis are going to use the Arabs for a moral yardstick, they've already surrendered their soul. All of this business about poor little Israel is 35+ years old. To find a greater military power than Israel, you have to go west to the UK (or France, but their track record is pathetic),East to India or China, North to Russia, and South to , um nobody there. Any Arab army that looks in Israel's direction gets chopped, sliced, and fried. The biggest threat to Israel is terrorism. The solution is simple: build a wall and get the f�^ out of the WB and Gaza. Just the Facts (snort, chuckle, giggle) Enough and Ariel have failed to distinguish themselves from Slobo and other war criminals and villains of history. Here's one piece of idiocy I thought especially galling:

Actually, the onus is on you to explain how evicting the Arabs from the West Bank is a violation of human rights. (what rights?)

Christ. Long story short: the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is a dirty tribal war in which the US has ZERO interest intervening. Around and around people like Enough and Hamas supporters go in their circle of stupidity and destruction.

That's high praise and I'm grateful to be put in such high company as the more regular posters here at LGF.