Good news! Now let's get those LGF t-shirts so we can show our support on our sleeves!

Why not ask people like Mr. Steyn or Mr. Frum to drop a nice note to CNBC? I can almost be 100% sure they would not hesitate to endorse LGF (as Mr. Steyn has done in his column - actually, it was his mentioning of LGF that brought me to your site, Charles - I'm an avid reader of Steyn, Pipes, Frum, Krauthammer et al).

On a separate note, here is the Frum article on North Korea that I talked about in a previous post (it finally made it to the NP Web page):

[Link: www.nationalpost.com...]

I wrote to them too. But the T-shirts are a great idea. I have heard people here in Australia muttering about having pirate T-shirts made to spread the word.....

Great Herbert piece. "It's a shame such progressive intolerance would lead him to make such a baseless and cruel charge"-- so true. Even though Anil is not an Islamofascist sympathizer, it's really sad to see his first inclination comes so close to suggesting censorship (no, he doesn't say MSNBC should yank you, but throwing a bomb like "hate speech" at a big corporation generally has very predictable effects).

I too have seemingly moved to the right as the left has moved away from things I believe in, like free speech. Funny, I don't feel like the one who changed.

Wrote to msnbc to voice my support for LGF. Keep up the good work, Charles, whether MSNBC endorses it or not. Continue to speak the truth, for the sake of truth-seekers everywhere.

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...]

Charles,

This IS how the mainstream detached LEFT media in America works.

They say 'is it just a hate site'?

As if they are one to speak, hate site?

Money does not make one a moral authority decide but instead truth and the record does.

We all knwo where MSNBC stands and what th epublic record on morals are fo rthem.

Compareds to Charles MSNBC is the Devil incarnate himself and Charles is St. Michael; protector or Israel.

The figure of Saint Michael Archangel

"Michael the Archangel as Prince of the Angels, Protector of the chosen people and the symbol of powerful divine assistance towards Israel. He appears three times in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Daniel (Dan 10, 13-21; 12, 1) where he is indicated as the defendant of the Hebrews and the supreme head of the heavenly army who defends the weak and the persecuted. "

“But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people: and a time shall come such as never was from the time that nations began even until that time. And at that time shall thy people be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book” (Dan 12, 1).
His name Mi ka - ‘El means Who is like God? Saint Michael has the title of Archangel attributed to him, the same title given to Gabriel - strength of God and Raphael - God heals. In the New Testament, Saint Michael the Archangel is presented as the adversary of the devil, victor of the last battle against Satan and his supporters.

Re: #4 - I find that the more people learn, the more they move to the right.

Charles,
How can we NOT support you , this site ,and ALL posters ,even when we disagree,
Thats what its all about no ?
I will be penning my letter this evening
Cheers,
HG

Help requested: I recall an LGF item from several months back that linked to a news article in some online British news source--I think it was the BBC, or possibly the Guardian. There was a comments section that accompanied the article, and it was filled with some of the most disgusting anti-Jewish imaginable.

I'd like to refer to this link in my letter to MSNBC. Does anyone have it? I tried searching the LGF archives but couldn't pin it down. Many thanks.

Charles:
Add mine to the list of voices in strong support of you and LGF. I have just emailed my opinion to "Best of the Blogs." I wonder if they will mention how many readers came out in support of you. Keep up the great work and thank you.

#8

Amen to that!

Even though Anil is not an Islamofascist sympathizer, it's really sad to see his first inclination comes so close to suggesting censorship

I suggested no such thing, and I never called LGF a hate site. This, along with the people who've emailed me calling me an anti-semite, or a terrorist sympathizer, or anti-american, is another one of the lies that some people here want to use to try to dismiss me as some crackpot, even though we share most of the same political beliefs. Sounds like Charles isn't the only one on the wrong end of a smear campaign.

Anil,

You are a crackpot, through and through.

Anti-American, pro-terrorist, anti-Jewish, and you have a real stupid name -- probably why you hate Christians, Jews and Americans right or was that because you mom is gay?

What kinda retarded name is anil?

I just forwarded this section on the smear campaign to Instapundit, along with a brief note to explain the situation. Unfortunately, Glenn has always ignored my fan mail. I guess he's too busy and I don't even have a blog. Is there anyone here who can get him to pay attention?

I've just sent my recommendations of LGF to the MSNBC.

I hope their mailbox explodes.

I have added my email to the MSNBC inbox, infrequent poster though I may be.

I am writing to add my outrage at the blatant smear attempt by various
people against Charles Johnson and his website, "Little Green Footballs".

LGF is an excellent source of news that is rarely reported by the
humdrum fifth estate. Charles has taken great pains to present a fair
and equitable perspective on Islam, tarring only the guilty with their
own words and actions. I would hardly consider that hate mongering.

Cries for censorship on his site go against what this great nation is
about - all who post on LGF have the right to their opinions, even those
who post vile anti-semitic rhetoric. Charles considers us adults who can
self-moderate - I find it extraordinarily ironic that there are people
on the left wing who would like to see censorship in place there.

LGF is a wonderfully informative and "tell it like it is" site - it's
unfortunate that in this era of political correctness it's become
increasingly difficult to tell the truth without being smeared by the
catch-all "racism" paintbrush. It makes you wonder about the motives of
the painters.

{real name and address provided}

#13 Anil

Geez Anil, Charles is on the RIGHT end of the smear campaign YOU ATTEMPTED TO START. You were hoping if you came back in whining about your woes we would be gracious enough to forget about that.

You brought this on yourself.

There is a pale, and #14 is well beyond it. Making fun of someone's name is about as useful as calling them a N*zi.

(Yes, as a matter of fact, I *am* sensitive about this subject).

Ian S.,

Oh you poor thing.

Were you bullied in kindergarten as well, name calling is bad news right, as bad as ...?

You comparison of a German nazi to a nazi sympathizer's name is hardly relativistic... but then again moral relativism isn't really about things of a equal nature now is it?

GI JOE (14):

Please don't feed the trolls like that (the fag references, even if they're true). That's what they're hanging their hat on.

Ian S.,

"sensitive"

Great word to describe a generation.

How old are you to have that word in your vernacular?

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.

Anil, that's from your blog. Tell me, in what dictionary does "prejudice" not equal "bigotry"? In what lexicon is bigotry not hatred?

(I would add, "In what universe does Charles fall into this category?" but that concept appears to be beyond your capacity to absorb.)

Be as disingenuous as you like. Truth is truth, and the truth is, your post led to Charles' site being labeled a hate site by MSNBC. That label is incorrect, and must be removed.

LGF Blogburst time, fellow bloggers. My post is up. So is Bill's. Next?

GI Joe:
Simmer down, dude. Tone down the name-calling. Y'all are just reinforcing Anil's (misguided) assumptions about lgf and giving him more ammo for his Slander Cannon.

Ian: came close to a Godwin's Law violation, but, thankfully, you avoided ending the discussion by not directly mentioning Hitler.

To MSNBC Blogspot

The truth is I get more of the truth from Little Green Footballs than I do from MSNBC, ABC, or CBS.

The reason good web sites like Little Green Footballs exist is because major networks like yours either do not address such hard topics or when they do address them, do so in a thoroughly slanted, distorted or vacuous manner.

Radical islamists are a major threat to us and obscuring that is not going to make them go way.

Why don’t you start telling the truth and giving us the facts? Why don’t you stop pandering to radical islamists?

Fed up with slanted and censored news.

Charles, did you see what Tony Pierce had to say on this subject. I think he agrees with all us anti-idiotarians.

[Link: www.tonypierce.com...]

It's the paragraph below the picture.

Somebody here mentioned "cognitive dissonance" the other day. The reference is to Leon Festinger's theory of "attitude change." I have been openly attempting practical applications of the theory here. Many who believed Bush's ISNA scripted "islam is peace" nonsense, on Sept. 17, 2001, have altered your views. Why? Because it became untenable, when you received contrary information that challenged your original belief. Some as yet unknown factor of the cognitive faculty equilibrates ambiguities, when said faculty is in a state of dissonance. Ergo: unbelief is impossible.

The more that you learn, the closer you will get to the truth:

1. Islam is perpetual war, either internally oppressive or externally aggressive.
2. All Muslims are conscripts to war.
3. Muslims cannot accept servitude to other than their Arab tribal god-entity, and must work for implementation of islamic-injustice (shariah) where ever they reside.
4. Under the Koranic "successor authority" model, Quereshi-RACIST-khalifa rule is absolute, and Muslims cannot disobey an authoritative fatwah, even if it prescribes MURDER of innocents.
See: [Link: www.as-sahwah.com...]
"Jihad" "Islamic Ruling on Killing Women, Children and the Elderly"

Remember the English captive of Taliban who later embraced Islam? Cause? Dissonance equilibration snap, caused by the general irresolution displayed by the nominal counter-terror side. Potentially we have 5,000,000,000 people on our side, versus a couple of hundred million Muslim fanatics, and their pre-dissonant followers. I would start by crushing the Muslim Students Association, under reasonable constraint provisions of the American Constitution, and pressuring Pakistan's liquidation of their Jamaati/MMA masters. Then I would wipe out all the Muslim centers of authority - al-Azhar/Teheran/Islamic universities - for promotion of genocide, and all the historical remnants of Mohammed's MURDER crusade. Dissonance would so dominate Muslim savages, that they would feel like headless chickens. Then they would be ripe for civilizing.

Lastly, I was attacked by several posters yesterday. I made a belated defense at #193 on "LGF Crusade."

GI Joe,

I find much in your postings engaging. I find your personal insults offensive and counter-productive to your insights. I really don't care what Anil thinks on this issue, I'm just tired of seeing the insults.

Remember that NBCs Tom Brokaw has also used Dateline to mount repeated attacks against Gypsies (or Travelers, as he calls them). Hmm...Hitler hated Gypsies, too. Am I picking up a pattern here?

I sent MSNBC an E-mail too.

Hell, I like this site enough to have sent a check, so an E-mail is nothing.

P.S. Anil is a doofus.

Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery:

I suggested no such thing, and I never called LGF a hate site.

Yeah, and Bill Clinton never had sex with that woman. Of course, what the President really meant to say was "I sort of had sex with that woman, but it was so clumsy, guilt-ridden, and pathetically unsatisfying that it isn't really fair to count it."

Maybe Anil should put it this way: "I've been doing my best to smear LGF as a hate site, but so far I 've only succeeded in impressing my little clique of politically-impaired friends, plus a couple of Nazi retards who hate Charles for banning their posts. Sigh. Guess I'm no Joe McCarthy."

Bang bang, Wishard's silver hammer came down on AD's head.

Here's mine:

Your comment about LGF being a hateful site is completely misguided and needs to be removed from your site immediately. LGF is one of the few voices out there that is willing to call the radical Islamic factor, both in the Middle East and here at home, as the threat to civilization that it is. If only the press in the US had LGF's integrity to report the truth, instead of the filtered nonsense that we keep reading and hearing. You don't have the stones to do it!

If it is a hate site that you are looking for, Anil Dash's blog is much more appropriate, since it is there that you will find the vile fabrication "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion".

You need to retract your loaded question and issue a public apology to LGF and Charles Johnson in particular, then examine Mr. Dash's site more closely.

Real name
Real address

I frequently disagree with Mr. Johnson, but to call his site a "hate site" is a classic example of irresponsible, and uninformed journalism. LGF has shown me a point of view that has expanded my knowledge of the palestinian-israeli conflict as nothing has.

Charles needs to get his LGF store up and running! Check this site out for high-quality merchandise at reasonable prices (and LGF will get a cut of every sale):

[Link: www.cafepress.com...]

(Note: this is a public service announcement only. I don't work for these guys and gain nothing out of it, other than helping Charles get a little more beer money...)

Don't worry Charles you have a 1000 times more credibility than that asswipe-appeasing-coward Bill Gates and his joke of a "news" service, it sucks almost as bad as Microsucks software.

my email to MSNBC:
I read LGF regularly. Is highlighting the murders of gays and "honor" killings of women hate? Is quoting the words of Islamist imams (preachers) so that one can judge the incitement against the West for oneself hate? Is being intolerant of intolerance hate? LGF goes out of its way to highlight the few rare instances in which the oppressed moderates of the Muslim world dare to raise their heads and voice their opposition to terror. Is that hate? Letting radical Islam speak for itself with its words and actions is not hate. Saying it is indulges the worst kind of moral equivalence - it equates the policeman with the murderer he chases.
Describing LGF as a hate site is a vicious smear. I sincerely hope you remove it.
Thank you.

Anil,

This one's for you! (It's an oldie, but a goodie!) Make sure the volume is turned WAY UP, now, y'hear?

[Link: www.acsu.buffalo.edu...]

#15 Instapundit: [Link: www.instapundit.com...]

Dear MSNBC:

I feel you are wrong to lend credence to Anil Dash. His article on grammar is riddled with errors, and is kind of snotty, too. I quote:

Fisk is not a transitive verb; It's a surname. It's no longer amusing to watch you make yourself sound silly.

Anil is apparently unaware that “Lynch” originated as a surname. It is now accepted as a transitive verb. Let’s use it in a sentence, shall we?

They fisked my best friend, boys, and I aim to lynch ‘em for it.

I could go on with this, but his entire case is as boring and pointless as a spelling flame at alt.groups.support.buttrash. He is mainly of interest to people who find Phil Donahue to be relevant and engaging. People like you, I guess.

Since NBC's news department is under the direction of their entertainment division it should not be unexpected to see it contain drivel.
Read Arthur [scud stud] Kent's book on how they treated him.

LGF has been accused of being a "hate site"?

Well...that's true...but ONLY to the extent that LGF can be counted upon to accurately quote chapter and verse the words and deeds of the Islamofascists.

Want a daily primer on what the enemy is up to? Then LGF is the first place to come.

LGF isn't afraid to publish the unvarnished truth about the Islamofascists unlike say, for example, MSNBC.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Johnson. You're an invaluable source of information in the war effort.

In case you haven't noticed "GI Joe" aka "Michael Glazer"

# 33 Wack-a-Mole: I searched Anil's site, but I was pretty sure I wouldn't find the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on it.

Lo and behold, I did not.

You don't need to lie about Dash's site. All you need to do is say why LGF isn't racist. You only harm Charles when you make up lies about his detractors.

And I have to say, the ad hominem attacks are pretty childish.

That was a general comment, not specific to anyone. But if the shoe fits...

I totally support you, Charles. I just read through the entire drivel that was Anil's post and the valiant fight that zulubaby put up. You go, both of oyu.

Meryl, I agree we need to have an LGF blogburst!

I'm gone for one day, and LGF gets attacked!

Yet, from the outpouring of reason rebutting this (primarily) leftist nonsense of name-calling and throwing about terms (bigot, racist, and the like) recklessly, it seems that the majority of people see through this bullshit.

Bring on those LGF t-shirts!

You all aren't a bit put off by being grouped with people who would lie and say that I'm an anti-semite? Who would falsely accuse me of putting shit like the Protocols on my site? These people are worth defending, but my points aren't valid?

That your peers slander me thusly:
Anti-American, pro-terrorist, anti-Jewish, and you have a real stupid name -- probably why you hate Christians, Jews and Americans right or was that because you mom is gay?

What kinda retarded name is anil?

Doesn't that make you wonder about the kind of company you're keeping? Can't you see that these people are hurting your cause? Wouldn't you rather brook the dissent of someone like me than be associated with them?

#43

Hah! I thought GI JOE sounded like the bastard child of Glazer and a counter-strike forum. Some actual points but essentially drowned out by meaningless name calling.

#47

Convenient to miss the community self policing, Anil.

# 33 Wack-a-Mole: I searched Anil's site, but I was pretty sure I wouldn't find the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on it.

Lo and behold, I did not.

You don't need to lie about Dash's site. All you need to do is say why LGF isn't racist. You only harm Charles when you make up lies about his detractors.

and

GI Joe,

I find much in your postings engaging. I find your personal insults offensive and counter-productive to your insights. I really don't care what Anil thinks on this issue, I'm just tired of seeing the insults.

and

GI Joe:
Simmer down, dude. Tone down the name-calling. Y'all are just reinforcing Anil's (misguided) assumptions about lgf and giving him more ammo for his Slander Cannon.

and

There is a pale, and #14 is well beyond it. Making fun of someone's name is about as useful as calling them a N*zi.

Yep, we're just inviting and fully supportive of un-based personal attacks.

#44

Was reporting what I had read elsewhere, so it was NOT an intentional lie. (Note to self: do your own research in the future. Do not rely on other sources). Did not do my due diligence and am taking myself to the woodshed as a result.

Consider tho... just because it isn't there NOW doesn't mean it wasn't there in the past. I didn't pull that comment out of thin air, so unless someone is intentionally trying to defame Anil (always a distinct possibility, I'll admit), there must have been a reason for the comment about it in the first place.. I'll try and find where I got the comment from and post the location here. If I completely misread the post, then my apologies will be posted here and to the MSNBC address.

#24: That was actually intended as a Godwin's Law reference, which means it wouldn't work anyway. Or something like that :)

#48: Yeah, I thought it was instructive that Anil directly followed up a string of people telling Glazer to simmer down by completely ignoring all of them. His selective reading abilities are truly amazing!

Clutch,

Good one.

I’m glad to see Anil, and some of buddies continuing to drop by. This is a good thing. It’s much better to argue a position than preach to the choir. By their continued presence they have shown not to be drive by trolls as it were so let’s not continue with the name-calling. I did it, it’s like kicking the dog: easy, but not much of a challenge.
Lets ask them to engage in serious debate. If they will.
Anil I may not agree with your tactics or strategies, but I respect you for your persistence and forth rightfulness to put your name out there to be maligned.
And everyone – not that I advocate driving the speed limit only when the cops are behind you, but consider the number of people who are stopping by for the first time because of the interest generated by this controversy. I know the breadth and depth of knowledgeable people who are regular posters here, let’s show it off.

I wrote to MSNBC and told them the truth:

"Little Green Footballs is a top-quality, fair, discussion blog. For
you to even suggest that it focuses on "hate" shows that you simply
have not read it. If you'd like to read a blog focusing on hate (and
outright falsehoods) please visit [Link: www.indymedia.org...]

Please revise your blog listing re: Little Green Footballs if you care
in the least about the accuracy of the statements on your site.

Thank you."

nikita demosthenes

Thanks for the correction on the Protocols of Zion stuff. And no, I don't think it's something that Anil might have done - I believe in his ability to keep reasonable content on his site.

Sorry this one is so late, I was in training all day on IOmega devices.

Here is the copy of the letter sent to MSNBC:

10/21/2002 8:38:54 PM

Hello:

Apparently the question has arisen concerning The Little Green Footballs site, asking if they are a “hate site”.

To say that this is nonsense is to state what is clear. From the original entry I would assume you would have checked out the site yourself. The amendment however suggests it is not the case.

The amendment is not only insulting to the site, but in my opinion cowardly. The amendment states that the site’s focus on the culture and dogma of Islamic terror may cause them to consider it racist, but it doesn’t state if the content provided by the site is true or false. Remember other than comments LGF articles links exclusively to other sites, news sites and photographs that are out there on the web. These are things that can be verified without much effort.

If a white man was publicly preaching peace but in certain private location among like minded individuals was saying hateful and false things about blacks, would a black man who exposed those statements be committing a racist act? Likewise if a black man was publicly preaching brotherhood between the races but was privately with like minded individuals calling for the death of whites would the person who exposed him be a racist?

Let me give another example. It was implied during the 2000 campaign that George Bush was a racist for not supporting hate crimes legislation by the NAACP. Does the charge of the NAACP automatically make him a racist? Does being a republican make him a racist? It is true that Mr. Bush did not support that legislation, but does it make his racist? Is that the standard for racism? This seems to be the standard used against LGF.

I regret to say the MSNBC seems to be using the standard that to expose the statements of people who call for the death of Jews, Christians, and Americans is racist because the people being exposed are not white Europeans. This is not only the height of absurdity, this is condescending to those who are exposed (MSNBC apparently thinks that Moslem’s are not civilized enough to be judged by their words and actions) , but racist itself since LGF is being judged not by the truth of what is said but who they are saying it about.

I suspect that if LGF was covering the scandal in the Catholic Church they would not be accused of being religious bigots by MSNBC.

Since MSNBC portends to be a news organization perhaps some reporting is in order, rather that mere slander. A very interesting story could be about Charles’ change of worldview over the course of the year as his own information and knowledge increased. It was a slow process as the information he had increased. That would be a news story that many people could relate to.

I’m sure that with the proper information you will reconsider your position.

Best wishes

Peter Ingemi
Massachusetts

It wasn't selective reading on my part, I wrote my comments before those comments were posted, I just wasn't at the computer for a while before I hit the post button. I'm glad to see others were offended. And Geepers, thanks for the display of respect. I've not called anyone here a retard, made fun of their names, or anything else, and I appreciate that you extend the same respect.

Consider tho... just because it isn't there NOW doesn't mean it wasn't there in the past. I didn't pull that comment out of thin air, so unless someone is intentionally trying to defame Anil (always a distinct possibility, I'll admit), there must have been a reason for the comment about it in the first place.. I'll try and find where I got the comment from and post the location here. If I completely misread the post, then my apologies will be posted here and to the MSNBC address.

This is pure witch hunting. I'm not an anti-semite, and I'd not have known about the Protocols of whatever the hell it is if not for this site, actually. But do you hear yourselves? Do you read the words you write? "there must have been a reason for the comment about it in the first place..." that's absurd! Meryl has made mention of the Protocols in reference to me on her site, now people are doing it here, and these are some apparently anti-semitic screeds about which I know next to nothing. What next, are you going to ask me to name names so I can clear myself? Is there a blacklist?

Aren't the rest of you bothered that someone can come in with a legitimate criticism, even if you might disagree with it (that the tone of this site encourages blanket statements against all muslims or arabs) and people immediately conjure up accusations of anti-semitism and anti-americanism?

I've mentioned in passing on this site, several times, that I'm strongly against there being any theocracies in this world, and the clearly Islam is the religion with the largest number of oppressive and unreformed followers of negative sects. I've explained my family history in dealing with terrorist violence. I've explained that I'm to the right of several people listed as "anti-idiotarians" on this site's sidebar, because I'm quite willing to entertain that war against Iraq might be necessary, if there's convincing evidence of an immediate threat. Jeff Jarvis, whose buzzgrinder site is linked on the sidebar, doesn't yet feel there's enough evidence, but he's not accused of being an anti-semite, or an america hater.

You should all be ashamed that there are people this desperate to create conflict on this site. I made accusations, backed them up with factual links, and then entered a debate, subject to the limitations of the time I have to discuss these things. Meanwhile, Meryl Yourish has accused me of being a leftist (lie.) leader (lie.) who emailed MSNBC (lie.) who called Charles a racist (lie.) and called LGF a hate site (lie.). She accuses me of "persuading" MSNBC to do something (lie.) which is impossible as I've never sent an email to them, for any reason.

She then accuses me of trying to silence LGF (lie.) despite the fact that it directly contradicts my exhortations that everyone here do justice to the points that they're trying to raise, by not sullying them with the taint of xenophobia or bias.

She says that some people consider bigotry a right-only problem, apparently including me. (lie.) Or that I object to Charles being a hawk. (lie.) Or that I don't object to IndyMedia or other similar sites. (lie.) Or that I claimed Charles is a bigot. (lie.)

This is someone most of you claim to respect, yet I can effortlessly pull almost a dozen lies out of one short post on her site. Doesn't it bother you that she's making up a screed against someone? That she makes assertions without even taking the time to link them to proof, as I've done with mine? That she didn't take the time to email me personally, as I did with Charles and several others on this site?

Since MSNBC posted their link, I've received one, arguably two, death threats via email. People have accused me of being all kinds of evil I'm not. I entered into a dialogue about LGF because the problem isn't Charles, it's the atmosphere he creates on this site. I don't think Charles is a racist, and I think that he should make sure his site should reflect that. But Meryl, like many of the truly desperately vicious people here, wants to make this about me vs. Charles, when it's me and charles, and any reasonable others, against people who don't do justice to important ideas.

#44 yet again.

Meryl, I found where I got my mis-information from; it was due to a mis-reading of a line from your site:

[Link: www.yourish.com...]

and I quote:

It's not like Charles were running a site called, say, Indymedia and had posted, oh, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, right Anil?

So, my bad, but a quick reading of that sentence made the association in my mind of Anil, the Indymedia site and TPotEoZ. Guilt by association, I guess.

Anil, my sincere apologies, and the correction will be e-mailed to MSNBC.

I forgot to mention it here, but I sent an email of support yesterday.

Tony Peirce's commentary is classic.

LGF is far from hateful, they just know who their enemy is and they dont let up. relentless is the word, will, fearless is another word, bro. ruthless, sharp, pointed, popular, and seething are some other words that you could use. but hateful is bogus and reactionary and you should take it off your page.

Damn, I go to bed early and look what I miss! Kudos to zulu, ratz, photios, E.Nough, Dee Bates and everyone else who defended Charles against the McCarthyism of the crazed loons of the Left. And, most of all, hats off to Charles. Your work is so important and means so much to us!

I've written to MSNBC as well. And I've also given an idiotarian over at Warbloggerwatch a piece of my mind (yes, I know I should avoid that Fool's Cesspool, but I can't resist visiting it - it's like watching a car wreck.) Those hypocrites are gloating over this, despite the fact that Nazi Mark Konrad has given their own site the Stamp of Approval. Just last night, I saw red when some a-hole wrote in the comments section that the IDF uses Pali kids as target practice. Goebbels would be proud, no? But they're not a hate site.

BTW, Charles, did you ever, in your wildest pre-9/11 dreams, think that you would ever be smeared as a far-right hate-monger? Life is strange and getting stranger.

Here's my email to MSNBC:

[begin quote]

Dear Sirs:

"Little Green Footballs" is a wonderful "blog."

I understand some have accused it of being a platform for "hate" speech.
Sadly, on occasion hateful, non-constructive things are posted there, but as
often as not these come from people who *hate* what "LGF" stands for, a spirit
of open inquiry, truth-seeking, and justice for ALL PEOPLE. Moreover, much of
the hate speech comes from those who identify themselves, by what they write,
as anti-Semites or people who hate the U.S. Most of the "regulars" who post on
"LGF" are decent and reasonable people.

Of course, there are always exceptions, but Charles Johnson, the owner of the
weblog, makes diligent efforts to keep things fair.

[end quote]

Not very fiery, but at least reasonable.

;-)

Some Hollywood star or publicist once said, I believe, "There's no such thing as *bad* publicity, or words to that effect.

So as someone suggested here already, the silver lining to this incident may be a larger readership for LGF!!

Jamie Irons

Sorry, cutting and pasting from my email program made that note hard to read.

(Must...remember...to preview...)

Jamie Irons

Jamie, an eloquent explanation like yours from Charles a few months ago is all that would have been needed to change the tenor and tone of discussion on this site to something that wasn't betraying the ideals of most of its visitors. LGF needs more commenters like you.

Anil, (#62)

I've been sitting on the sidelines for the most part, reading the to and fro and your last post just makes me wonder.

I'm really not sure why you think Charles needs to appease you.

What exactly does he owe you? Or anyone, for that matter?

This is his website. He is under no obligation to you or anyone. We are all adults here (most of us, anyway) and most of us can self censor - we don't need him to do it for us.

You don't like it? Don't read it.

I do that with your website :) It's easy. Really.

All the best,
Kinneret

Wack A. Mole: Glad to see that last post. You're a good man (or woman) to apologize like that, and I hope I didn't jump too hard on you.

Anil, my answer to you is getting too long. I'm posting it on my weblog.

One thing that alt.syntax.tactical troll types could easily exploit about this site is the lack of a fixed identity for the posters. Correct me if I'm wrong, Charles, but a troll team could go through here and "put words in sombody's mouth" to fan a flamewar, with the originator of that "handle" or "screen name" having nothing to do with it.

For instance, how do I know that the "real" GI JOE was the one who posted the juvenile crap about Anil's name? If our esteemed visitor was looking for posts to criticize he could just as soon pull a Tawana Brawley and generate them himself, were he so inclined.

[Just shouting "fire" in a crowded theater...]

Ken Barnes wrote:

For instance, how do I know that the "real" GI JOE was the one who posted the juvenile crap about Anil's name? If our esteemed visitor was looking for posts to criticize he could just as soon pull a Tawana Brawley and generate them himself, were he so inclined.

Well, let's just say that several people have been banned already for posting under other people's names. As for the mechanism that revealed them, I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

I'm really not sure why you think Charles needs to appease you.

He doesn't. Why are you willing to accept important ideas being tainted by being associated with racism, xenophobia, bigotry, and slander?

#66, Charles:

So that's who those guys with the earbuds and dark shades are...

The Department of Homeblog Security.

[They pretend not to notice if you wave at them. But they're watching your hands.]

BTW, I bet you've got a "Kibo filter" set up that greps for strings like "Correct me if I'm wrong, Charles*"', don't you?

*knowing smile*

Anil, (#67)

I think you're confusing ideas with opinions. Certainly, opinions can be tainted ... we see that both here and on your own website. Ideas, especially good ones, tend to shine through. Personally, I think through concepts before I color them with taint ...

So, your claim is spurious. This entire world and everything in it(not just "ideas"), if you use your supposition, is tainted with racism, bigotry, xenophobia and slander. This world is also imbued with the wonders of truth, justice, honesty and kindness (to name but a few). Or do you think that by having one set of "values" you automatically lose the others?

Sorry, that doesn't wash.

I'm more than capable of weeding out the bad from the good and drawing my own conclusions. I don't need your ideas of censorship to do it for me.

Nor do I need Charles to light the way to clarity and the moral path as you seem to find so necessary in these pages.

Thinking for yourself is a good thing. I recommend it :)

Hot off the presses: [Link: www.yourish.com...]

Anil:

I've not called anyone here a retard, made fun of their names, or anything else, and I appreciate that you extend the same respect.

You show respect to gain respect, so thanks.
As for the first part of your statement, dude that’s part of the problem, you’re just too damn polite. Don’t be coy, don’t pull your punches, say it like you mean it then hit them with the hard facts. If your not jumping down peoples throats with both barrels blazing its hard to get any attention. State your case, and say it LOUD. If you fuck up people will point it out (trust me a favorite pastime around here is called fact-checking your ass.) Then apologize and go on. Don’t politely tell that big dog to get off your couch, demand it! Of course this requires that you might get bit, mauled and pulled to pieces by the pack, but that’s the price of admission. Enjoy the show.

How bout it folks? Anil says he didn’t incite MSNBC to make their goofy “LGF is hate” statement. Somehow I believe him. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? Sure they mentioned his name along side it, but that’s guilt by association, by a somewhat disreputable news source that’s been disparaged here. Maybe the ratings are down and they’re whoring for exposure by fanning the flames. It wouldn’t take long to see which threads got lots of hits and why.

Anil (#47)

In typical fashion:

You all aren't a bit put off by being grouped with people who would lie and say that I'm an anti-semite? Who would falsely accuse me of putting shit like the Protocols on my site? These people are worth defending, but my points aren't valid?

That your peers slander me thusly:
Anti-American, pro-terrorist, anti-Jewish, and you have a real stupid name -- probably why you hate Christians, Jews and Americans right or was that because you mom is gay?

What kinda retarded name is anil?

Doesn't that make you wonder about the kind of company you're keeping? Can't you see that these people are hurting your cause? Wouldn't you rather brook the dissent of someone like me than be associated with them?

Predictably, you only see the insulting posts. That there were several posts after that, slamming those that insulted you, seems to be of no consequence to you.

Anil (#56)

I've not called anyone here a retard, made fun of their names, or anything else, and I appreciate that you extend the same respect.

See, I remember you calling someone a pig a few months ago.

This is pure witch hunting.

So now you know how it feels. Please let me remind you that it was you that started this back in August with your nasty attack on Little Green Footballs, or should I say Little Green Monsters?

What next, are you going to ask me to name names so I can clear myself? Is there a blacklist?

No blacklist, but I'm sure you wouldn't be opposed to it so long as it included LGF, and all the posters here.

Aren't the rest of you bothered that someone can come in with a legitimate criticism, even if you might disagree with it (that the tone of this site encourages blanket statements against all muslims or arabs) and people immediately conjure up accusations of anti-semitism and anti-americanism?

Legitimate criticism? Don't tempt me Anil. I've never accused you of being an Anti-Semite.

You should all be ashamed that there are people this desperate to create conflict on this site.

I couldn't be prouder to be associated with Charles, LGF, and the regular posters here. I'm going to reflect that back at you and ask you why you feel no shame in the fact that you unfairly and viciously attacked Charles on your site. You stubbornly insist that you have done no wrong. You keep screeching about how ashamed we should all be, and how we should all be embarrassed by the company that we keep. There are literally thousands of people that read, and post here. You would like me to take responsibilty for everyone here? Grow up. I would rather be associated with the LGF posters than your good buddy, Neale. Think about it. In your perfect world, you would like to stifle any and all debate about Muslims and Islam.

Enough Anil. Enough of your bullshit. I was thinking about this whole episode today, and when I asked you yesterday, (on the LGF Crusade thread, which, mind you, you had a snide remark about) to stick around, and not post and leave like you usually do, my hope was that we could finally get this cleared up somehow. I naively thought that this would be an opportunity for me to understand you a little better, and for you to understand me a little better. I am disappointed that it didn't turn out that way. I am not one bit closer to knowing what you stand for, what your feelings, thoughts and opinions are on anything, besides your belief that LGF is a racist site. I suspect that you are someone who would have a hard time apologizing for something you did, even when you realized you were wrong.

No matter how many times you and I have sparred, not once have you relented in any way, or at least had the common courtesy to slow down long enough to acknowledge that I may have a valid point too.

I think the time has come for us to realize that there is no way you will listen to anyone here. You will always focus on the few negative posts, whether they be from regular posters, or one-time trolls like the Wyatt Earp that John Wehr thought he was so smart in quoting.

What do you want Anil? What is going to satisfy you? No-one looks ready to roll over and play dead in order to keep you happy. What will it take for you to admit that you started this whole ugly thing, and now you are bearing the consequences. You have brought this upon yourself. If there is one lesson that you should learn from all this, it is that the next time you feel the urge to slander someone's name, best you choose someone less loved, less respected, less admired, and less honest than Charles Johnson.

#47 Anil

In a word, no.

I sent an e-mail to MSNBC with my support as well. But they got rid of Alan Keyes despite the many e-mails, so I hardly expect them to demonstrate courage with this.

Anil,

You've rarely demonstrated anything to argue about, other than whether LGF is a hate site. Many of your statements (theocracies are bad) are interesting, but somewhat wishy-washy. If you have some point, please feel free to make it.

Damn zulubaby, your good. Three minutes after I ask for some fact-checking your there with “both guns blazing.”

Zulubaby,

. I am not one bit closer to knowing what you stand for, what your feelings, thoughts and opinions are on anything, besides your belief that LGF is a racist site.

Funny how we both noticed that.

Too bad you all had that event on the West Coast - I think it would be great fun to get everyone together out East some time. :)

Um, you guys are probably waaaay ahead of me but I forwarded the MSNBC link to Taranto at WSJ's Best of the Web Today. He's gotten good material from LGF (how I heard of the place) and maybe will lend a hand.

Geepers (#72)

Here's some evidence. This is what Anil said on LGF back in September (MSNBC actually links to this very post):

"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."

Anil has of late taken to denying that he's ever called Charles a racist or accused him of bigotry.

It's actually kind of fascinating, watching this guy equivocate, hem, haw, retreat, deny, run, hide, accuse, retract--but never, ever apologize for this mess he's created.

Keep up the good work Charles.

Geepers (#76)

Thank you :-) If you are interested in a more comprehensive analysis of Anil's twisting, read this.

Ariel (#77)

That is my biggest problem with Anil. And with anyone else really, who comes in here, taking issue with nothing but the commentators. Not only that, they expect to be respected and appreciated it for it. I have always taken offense to unsolicitated advice. It's rude.

I would love to get together with the East Coasters. I'm in New York fairly often, although not as often as I used to be. I am due for a visit soon though. If you guys do pull something together, let me know.

I'm fairly new to this whole blogging thing, but this site is one that I visit frequently. I've already e-mailed MSNBC in support of LGF.

Going through all the posts above, it seems to me that this Anil fellow set in motion a controversy that he would like to control, but can't. (I'm trying to see the best here.)

I would suggest that a substantial part of this mess could be cleaned up if Anil sent a simple, clear, UNAMBIGUOUS retraction and apology to MSNBC, and posted copies on this site and his site.

I wonder if that will happen.

Dean (#82)

I sent an email to Anil suggesting exactly that: contact MSNBC and retract your original accusations.

I hope Anil is lying awake in bed right now, wondering how he can extricate himself from this trap he's snared himself in. If I were him I would be after MSNBC around the clock until they change their little "is this hate?" bookend to the description of LGF. It's that way because of Anil. And it's up to Anil to man up now and do the right thing.

Hi Charles.

Don't let this frightened, elitist little twit piss you off. There's plenty more where all of your support came from.

"That's why LGF is so insanely popular. It is representative and informative, and in some ways, inspiring to people who have been hungry for that kind of inspiration for a long time. Whether you agree or disagree with all of Charles' points, they do make you think, and that's what the media should be doing rather than spoon-feeding a bored and cynical audience fluffed and spun opinions bundled in the thin shiny wrapper of 'news'. "

[Link: www.livejournal.com...]

Love to you and yours,

Heather Chase
~~~~~~~~~~~
Supreme Bitch
BitchPundit.Com

Dean (#82) and Goldenwebb (#83)

I'm afraid to tell you both that nothing of the sort is going to happen. First problem being that Anil refuses to take responsibility for the fact that he started this ugly fiasco himself. You are witnessing the boiling over of a battle that has been brewing for some time now. Anil began his smear campaign against Charles back in August.

If he isn't even man enough to own up to his mistakes, why would you expect him to apologize for them? He has been discredited repeatedly, but has thus far not conceded one point. In fact, he is crying now about being the victim of a "witch-hunt", and of a smear campaign himself.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but I call a spade a shovel. Don't expect any decency from him. I've been at it with him for months about his accusations about LGF. He continues to deny that he has double-standards, and stubbornly refuses to see that he bears many of the charactestics that he is so quick to criticize in others.

Just because you have decency, don't assume that all others do too.

Time to fight back. You should put up a large poster that all your supporters can download and stick up on the walls (or mail to these oafs).

Don't you dare let them grind you down.

I would rather be associated with the LGF posters than your good buddy, Neale.

At last, something we can agree on!

#73 In your perfect world, you would like to stifle any and all debate about Muslims and Islam.

Well, in my case that's completely wrong. What I would like to stifle is hate-speech, which I consider dangerous to the freedom of those the speech is against. There are more and more posts on LGF that border on, if not are, hate speech. I've been trying to get people on LGF to recognise that fact - people here, however, are so defensive they refuse to believe it possible, even when such instances are quoted. I don't think all debate should be quashed (otherwise I wouldn't be criticing radical Islam on my blog), but I do think hate-speech should be, at the very least, crushed by the posters on LGF, rather than being left to remain unquestioned or uncommented upon.

#23 Tell me, in what dictionary does "prejudice" not equal "bigotry"? In what lexicon is bigotry not hatred?

Well, this one for a start. Prejudice ain't bigotry, and bigotry is not hatred. The three are connected, but are not the same.

#23 Truth is truth, and the truth is, your post led to Charles' site being labeled a hate site by MSNBC. That label is incorrect, and must be removed.

But my post led to Anil's post, so can it be my fault? Then again, racist comments on LGF led to my post. So therefore I blame racist comments on LGF for Charles' site being labelled a hate site.

#25 Radical islamists are a major threat to us and obscuring that is not going to make them go way.

Why don’t you start telling the truth and giving us the facts? Why don’t you stop pandering to radical islamists?

What do racist comments on LGF have to do with pandering to radical islamists? Anil isn't one, so if Meryl is correct, they're pandering to unradical aethiests. Heaven forbid.

#27 1. Islam is perpetual war, either internally oppressive or externally aggressive.
2. All Muslims are conscripts to war.
3. Muslims cannot accept servitude to other than their Arab tribal god-entity, and must work for implementation of islamic-injustice (shariah) where ever they reside.

I did a quick scroll'n'scan - no-one called NA on this bullshit (and, really, the idea that all 1.2 billion muslims are war conscripts is bullshit). This is exactly the point; LGF allows contant bullshit on its boards, and is calling on the anti-Islamic rhetoric less and less. Where's the outrage? You're listening to it, and you don't seem to like what it says.

#59 I've also given an idiotarian over at Warbloggerwatch a piece of my mind

Good.

Hey, I don't have to like all the Left, do I?

#85 Sorry if I seem harsh, but I call a spade a shovel.

Well, there's the problem. Start calling your spades "spades", and we'll probably see eye to eye.

Charles posts english translations of sermons from the islam is peace mosques and we find out the immans are not all that peaceful. This is recorded week in week out.Charles makes a link to a palestinian woman who made a video of her son before he blew himself up. Mom was just sooo proud. She also had to be in the video to try and get other moms to give up their sons "for peace". Arafat is shown in action and words to be the leader of the death cult he and his minnions have moulded. Charles has been helpful in shinning a light on the loser arafat and all the thugs who work for arafat.

For his efforts Charles is branded a racist and muslim hater. Yet no one who has made that charge or now we are down to implying that. Has shown how by giving information which is truthful makes Charles a racist.

Neal (#87)

You said:

"What I would like to stifle is hate-speech.... There are more and more posts on LGF that border on, if not are, hate speech.... people here, however, are so defensive they refuse to believe it possible, even when such instances are quoted."

You said:

"Then again, racist comments on LGF led to my post. So therefore I blame racist comments on LGF for Charles' site being labelled a hate site."

Which is it, Neale? Racism or hate-speech? As you said yourself: "Prejudice ain't bigotry, and bigotry is not hatred. The three are connected, but are not the same." Similarly, hate-speech ain't racism; the two are connected sometimes, but are not the same.

LGF isn't racist; you know this and are just being lazy.

So that leaves hate-speech.

Here's one leftist articulation of that term (From HATE SPEECH: NEW EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES, by Helen Darbishire--Roma Rights No. 4, 1999): "The classic definition of "hate speech" is expression which incites hatred, particularly racial, national, or religious hatred. It must be recognized that some speech which is undoubtedly offensive, does not constitute hate speech, even though it may contribute to a climate of prejudice and discrimination against minorities. Such speech would include the tendency by media to report the bad news about minorities when it affects the majority population, for example noting when the perpetrator of a crime is the member of a minority.... Equally, depicting members of minorities through clichéd and stereotyped images might be offensive but is not generally regarded as hate speech."

What's your definition of hate-speech, Neale? And is LGF really full of this supposed hate-speech, or merely passionately-held opinions that you just happen to find offensive for ideological reasons?

Neale (#87)

Aahh, the always pleasant Neale has come back to give us all a lecture about what racists we are.

Did you bother answering my question from this thread?

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?

There are plenty of other questions for you there. Too much of a coward to go back?

I have very little patience for you. You are nothing more than a nasty troll as far as I'm concerned. Rest assured, I will never see eye to eye with you about anything. I wouldn't want to be associated with the likes of you. I don't respect you, therefore your opinions are of no consequence to me.

Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?Where's the outrage?

Zzzzzzzzz...

Quit your whining already. You're getting on my nerves.

Any thoughts on these Jew hating, racist, bigoted, xenophobic, violent, um, people? Or do you reserve the label "racist" for the posters at LGF exclusively?

What makes you especially nauseating is, that while there are so many real issues to concern yourself with, you choose this site to crusade against. How immature. As is so typical of your sort, the only thing you post about is other people's comments. Pathetic! But keep it up. You're just exposing your true character more and more, and unlike you, I don't suffer from an allergic reaction to the truth. I embrace it.

If LGF offends your delicate sensibilities, here's a suggestion:
Don't come here. Easy!

If I were Charles, I'd sue you and your friend Anil for slander. But then Charles is a far nicer person than I am.

Have you ever noticed that those who criticize what they cannot match are always anti whatever-their-whine-is?

Anil, like the imams of the mosques of Araby, you are damned by your own words. You show no character, or class, when you don't acknowledge your published gripes. Don't come whining now about "witch-hunts" and the like.

You seem to think that since there are some who post here that are less than we'd like, we ought to just fold up the tents and decamp. Personally, I usually ignore most trolls. Some are funny, though. Some remind us that those who are "for us" do more damage than those who are opposed. Then there are those who have not grown up and simply blat out the first thing that comes to their mind - sans any semblance of self-censorship. Their words are a lighthouse alerting a thinking person to an unripe mind.

The true hate speech here comes by way of those trolls who spew their rhetorical sewage against the more thoughtful opinions here. They have no argument to offer. They are invariably "anti-" whatever, never for anything.

I am not guilty of any of these things. Why should I declare myself guilty by association? That is a collectivist idea, to which I do not subscribe. I happen to be an individual. What others think and say have nothing to do with me unless I specifically say that I agree. If an idea is offered in a thoughtful and critical fashion, I'll consider it and either explicitly agree or disagree - and give my reasons for doing so.

You are caught up in the politically correct maelstrom. This is an term that I imagine makes the Fathers spin in their graves. The whole point of the founding principles of this country is so that no one can dictate what is politically correct. What you advocate isn't just censorship - it is thought control; only those ideas you deem worthy ought to be allowed, and all else is to be cut out. If you want to speak your mind, you must grant the same right to others, no matter how you judge it.

(Actually, of course, you have no "right" to grant anything to anyone. A right is that which applies to everyone or no one, or else it isn't a right. No one can have a valid "special" right that comes at the expense of, and cancels out another's rights.)

Charles (if you've read this far), I've sent my two-cents worth into MSNBC, with a cc to you. Thank you for all you do.

"Which is it, Neale? Racism or hate-speech... LGF isn't racist; you know this and are just being lazy. "

Jeez, you seem to be skirting the issue somewhat. Here's what I've said over time...

"There are more and more posts on LGF that border on, if not are, hate speech."

"Then again, racist comments on LGF led to my post. So therefore I blame racist comments on LGF for Charles' site being labelled a hate site".

"What do racist comments on LGF have to do with pandering to radical islamists?"



(and elsewhere)...

"I have never stated that Charles himself is racist. What I have argued is that, as the owner of the Site, Charles is responsible for the voice and direction of the site."

"Nor do I accuse Charles of posting terrible mistruths. However, at LGF, there is a constant, unremitting bias against Muslims and Islam, and that sometimes it is not what is posted, but what is not posted, that makes all the difference."

"I think Charles could do a lot to change the course of direction that LGF is heading."

So let's recap: I've pointed to (clearly, IMHO) racist comments on LGF, spoken about how these use to be infrequent, about how they are becoming more and more frequent (and what I think the cause of this is), that the LGF community are arguing against these less and less, and that Charles needs to do something about it. I'm amazed that people see anything wrong with that. Apart from pointing out the various specific comments people have made, I have not pointed the finger at specific people and said "racist, racist!", nor have I said that every poster on the site is a racist.

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?

Let me think... I spent most of high-school with the nickname "Jewboy", a wonderful term I'm sure you can sympathise with, so please don't give me any crap about not knowing prejudice or what it's like to be on the receiving end of racial slurs. I've stuck up in the defense of both myself and Jews alike on many occasions. I have not been very active on Clear Guidance due to restrictions on my 'net connection - if I could, I would. Hell, today I wrote about the increase of anti-Semitism on the "Left" on my blog.

Any thoughts on these Jew hating, racist, bigoted, xenophobic, violent, um, people? Or do you reserve the label "racist" for the posters at LGF exclusively?

Disgusting, and I've said so publicly on many occasions. I reserve the term "racist" for anyone who requires it, and posters on LGF are no exception - should they be?

As is so typical of your sort, the only thing you post about is other people's comments.

What is my sort? The Australian Jewish Left? We're absolute bastards you know. Don't trust us. We'll ply you with hallah and beer until you puke, then steal your wallet.
As for your questions on the other thread...

Well-trained!? Excuse me? What the fuck do you actually think goes on here? A training camp? Over-analyse?

I would argue that since WWII people, the Right in particular, has learnt how to spot and rectify anti-Semitism. Everyone has been trained in this type of thing - I was not being specific to those on LGF. It's what happens when six-million innocents are murdered. Or would you deny that the West has become acutely aware of anti-Semitism since then? I think that there is over-analysis on LGF about anti-semitism in the media - such as accusations that when a news-item uses the word "militant" instead of "terrorist", it's pro-Palestinian and anti-Semitic.

How do you feel about this [link], 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?

Of course I give a shit about it. I am as against anti-Semitism as I am against anti-Islamism. I am against racism of any kind, and I can't believe that you would defend it with such whole hearted passion simply because it occurs on the same discussion board that you post to.

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.

So what? Racism is racism, no matter who the speaker is. When was the last time you took Nasty to task, or Ranbutan? Or any of those here who espouse the crap that, if directed towards the Jews, you would go apeshit about?

Lastly, I don't recall Charles ever inviting you in here to critique his site.

He didn't invite me - any more than LGF was invited to criticise Clearguidance. I don't think that LGF is anywhere near as bad as CG, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that the people here would rather ignore the extremists in their midst than do something about it. I felt it was time to say something.

Or would you rather the racist (even against Islam) comments go unfettered?

#64.

Male. Took the screen name from my five-year-old daughters' favorite game.

Meryl, nope, you did not jump on me too hard. Isn't this the list that "fact-checks yo' ass?" Consider my ass checked (yup, still there and as fat as ever. Damn...) If I am factually wrong, I have no problem with being corrected and admitting to and apoligizing for my mistake. I believe in taking personal responsibility for my actions and when they are out-of-bounds, correcting them.

Well, I didn’t see much evidence against Anil. I think one of the reasons he pisses people off is his inability to take concrete stands on anything. It’s really hard to get your hands around that squishy “be nice” politically correct anti-hate position. Like Dee Bates says he’s “anti- a lot of stuff the rest of it is just mush. (bendy straws.) I’ve said it here before – Pick a cause you believe in and fight for it. Don’t just be “against” something. This is my biggest complaint with the anti-war crowd. They’re passionately against the war, but have absolutely no alternative solutions. Peace, love and understanding doesn’t solve international crisis or even win an argument. The only thing it does is allow the “moral” objector to walk away with a false sense of superiority.

The one question I was hoping someone would ask? – “Anil you claim that you didn’t email MSNBC to start this whole thing, but did you have one of your confederates do it for you?”

I’m with Ariel on this one:

Anil: If you have some point, please feel free to make it.

When the dog keeps crapping on the carpet no matter how many time you beat him its time to get a doghouse and a chain and keep him out back. (zulubaby) It seems like were wasting far too much time shouting them down with nothing to show for it but sore throats.

If Mr./Ms. Dash did not in fact email MSNBC, then why doesn't he write them a complaint asking for a clarification? The fact that s/he has wasted all this time complaining about -- well, being complained about, makes me think that in fact s/he was the one who "alerted" MSNBC to the 'awful hate site' that LGF supposedly is. Of course, that is merely my opinion. I could be wrong. Guess we'll never really know, will we?

There is no such thing as 'hate speech' in our system.

Speech is speech, and it is protected under the First Amdmt. There are very strict ground rules as to what constitutes illegal speech in our system.

Neale, don't you and Anil have a very important Everquest game you need to be at just about now?

I think you two youngsters should stop pestering the adults on this forum, and keep busy with your computer games.

Thank you for your cooperation.

It's Mr. Andrea. To answer the question "Anil you claim that you didn’t email MSNBC to start this whole thing, but did you have one of your confederates do it for you?" No. I've never had any contact with MSNBC for any reason, and the only emails I've sent about LGF were to Charles and people who emailed me from reading this site.

I think one of the reasons he pisses people off is his inability to take concrete stands on anything.

I have to save that quote, because I always tend to piss people off in real life by speaking my mind. Funny how differently some come off online.

And I've made a lot of concrete stands. I don't debate the things that I agree with, unless someone specifically asks me to be a devil's advocate. The concrete stand I've made here is that LGF is more of a threat than a help to the causes Charles is trying to promote. That's not an argument the people here are willing to even consider, so it seems futile to keep presenting the logic behind it.

Anil #97

You say:

The concrete stand I've made here is that LGF is more of a threat than a help to the causes Charles is trying to promote. That's not an argument the people here are willing to even consider, so it seems futile to keep presenting the logic behind it.

Anil, this is a good example of why you are getting so much flak. IMHO, the statement is a load of crap.

Yes, LGF has a few people that make statements that virtually everyone else does not approve of. This is what happens when you have freedom of speech and a open forum such as this (not to mention one that so many people find interesting and linkable). In many cases, they ignore the ravings. In some places, they are slapped. Occasionally they are banned. These people are a tiny minority in both instance and in influence. You clearly think this poisons the well, when it most certainly does not negate the huge amount of reasoned, humane thoughts that are the vast majority of this site; you are wrong and you won't admit it.

This board serves as a central location for the illumination of hundreds of news stories and similar media that very often displays the danger, hatred and sickness within the Muslim community. It also provides a forum for people to discuss these issues.

Many of these people criticize Muslim/Arab hatred, almost always not because of the religion or race, but because of their hatred and the injury that this hatred has on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

I can think of no other media outlet that more clearly illuminates the danger posed by millions of Muslims who believe it is God's command to destroy non-believers. This appears to me to be what Charles is doing, and he is doing a damn good job. The "evil" that you so loosely slander LGF with pales against the true evil perpetrated by those that this site focuses on.

Many of the best people at LGF have considered your arguments and thoroughly refuted them. You and Neale and Jerk appear to be the only ones who willfully insist that you don't see this.

If I agree that a few comments on this site are hateful -- for the umpteenth time, comments that are "hateful" to Muslims are not racist, because Islam is mult-racial -- if I agree that no matter what is said here that virtually no one agrees that all Muslims are a danger to the world, will you please just go away until you have something of substance to say? Your fallacious arguing is "futile," as you say.

And before you do, could you please respond to Goldenwebb refuting your claim that you aren't calling anyone a racist and aren't calling LGF a hate site (whether you use that term or not, that's exactly what you mean) #79 [Link: www.littlegreenfootballs.com...] who quoted your own words:

Here's some evidence. This is what Anil said on LGF back in September (MSNBC actually links to this very post):

"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."

Neale wrote:

What I would like to stifle is hate-speech, which I consider dangerous to the freedom of those the speech is against.

Once again I'll give you credit for making the anti-free speech argument openly, rather than hiding it behind a smoke screen as the left has become accustomed to doing. Now we can deal frankly with the issue of who decides what "hate speech" is, and if you and Anil are volunteering your services, the rest of us have got a big problem with that.

When you find it convenient, you pretend that those who don't answer objectionable comments (or delete such comments from their website) are endorsing the sentiments expressed. Which makes me wonder why the government doesn't crack down on the Flat Earth Society right now.

But when you talk about hate speech, you don't cite VNN or Indymedia or the Electronic Intifada. The hypocrisy has already been pointed out, and the motive is obvious to everyone.

You wrote at Wetlog that you, personally, don't live in a society where "free speech" is a right. In fact, you went into a kind of pseudo-Marxist rant where you all but called it the opium of the masses. Well, others who live in your part of the world disagree with you. They hold that free speech is a right inherent in democracies, and I absolutely agree.

I kind of hope that you don't agree, because I would hate to think that you have a problem with democracy, too.

Anil -

Though you plume yourself on your good manners for not, technically, having called anybody a "retard", your entire argument here, essentially, is that the readers of this site are too stupid and too uninformed to critically evaluate the content of either the posts or the contributions to the comments section. You seem to feel that some vague something ought to be done about protecting readers from harmful content (though you seem to have trouble stating exactly what that something is). If that's not calling everyone retards, I don't know what is.

This quaint view is no doubt related to your odd belief that the ideas of, say, an E. Nough are irredeemably tainted by appearing on the same comment board as those of, say, a Michael Glazer. Consider your orwellian gem from #67:

Why are you willing to accept important ideas being tainted by being associated with racism, xenophobia, bigotry, and slander?

Perhaps you ought to sit down and think about why I found this comment so comically patronizing that I burst out laughing. I couldn't come up with a better turn of pharisaical lefty control-freak bombast if I sat down and tried to write a parody.

It's a tainted world, Mr. Dash; we're all fallen. The First Amendment, unlike "speech codes", is informed by that understanding. I know where I draw the lines in defining "racism, xenophobia, bigotry, and slander". I'd wager you draw ithose lines differently. So which one of us is qualified to "purify" speech in the public square?

Btw, Anil, your site is as biased as anybody's - as it bloody well should be. It's your site. Let us know if Charles ever presumes to insist that you "correct" its slant, or to dictate the content of your posts and your banned-commenters list.

Dear Anil:

Thanks for misquoting my post which was only two posts above your reply. I did not, in fact, say:

"Anil you claim that you didn’t email MSNBC to start this whole thing, but did you have one of your confederates do it for you?"

but instead, what I said was:

If Mr./Ms. Dash did not in fact email MSNBC, then why doesn't he write them a complaint asking for a clarification? The fact that s/he has wasted all this time complaining about -- well, being complained about, makes me think that in fact s/he was the one who "alerted" MSNBC to the 'awful hate site' that LGF supposedly is.

(Note for "'awful hate site'" I used "irony" quotes, not "direct" quotes, because I did not directly quote you, but that is the gist of what you seem to be accusing this website of being.) If I had wanted to accuse you of using some "confederate" to email MSNBC in your stead, I would have said so. All you had to do was cut and paste, but instead you chose to "rewrite" me. Therefore I hope you understand why I think that you are a dishonest person, who misrepresents the viewpoints and statements of people you disagree with, in order to make them look as if they were not just counter to what you believe, but also stupid, racist, and bigoted.

Andrea Harris (#101)

He goofed. I’m the one who asked if Anil was playing a game of literal semantics.

Neale #92

Jeez, you seem to be skirting my question somewhat. Which is it? Racisim or hate speech? And define hate speech for us.

These distinction are important, Neale. What you and Anil and John Wehr have essentially done is rushed into the crowded common room of LGF and screamed the rhetorical equivalent of "FIRE!" ("Racism!")

LGF old-timers, bored with your games, roll their eyes and ignore you.

But I'm new to this place, and you've startled me out of my chair. "Where?" I ask, looking around. "Where's the fire?" I see no smoke or flames, feel no heat.

You don't answer my question directly. Instead, you point over at Nastification Agenda. "Look!" you scream, "Nastification is PLAYING with FIRE!"

Startled, I look over at Nastification. He's got a Malboro in his mouth, a Bic lighter in his hand. He lights his cigarette, then puts the Bic back in his pocket.

"He's not playing with fire, he's just lighting up," I say.

You don't answer me directly. Instead, your sceaming again. "Nastification is SMOKING! It's so VILE, so OFFENSIVE, so UNHEALTHY! How can you all stand to have him in your MIDST! His second-hand smoke is poisoning the very AIR YOU BREATHE! Oh, the HORROR! Charles, make him go OUTSIDE!"

But it's clear Charles doesn't need to do any such thing. Even as I watch, people are moving away from Nastification and his little cloud of cigarette smoke. No real harm is being done.

I point this out to you.

You tell me I'm just skirting the issue.

Goldenwebb,

Welcome to LGF. Factual and entertaining. You obviously honed your Fisking skills at other sites. You fit right in.

#92 Neal

Or would you rather the racist (even against Islam) comments go unfettered?

How can one be "racist" against a belief system? It's not a person.

I don't feel it's my place to criticize the purely religious aspects of Islam, and I don't. I care very little whether "Allah" is a pagan moon good or whehter the Kabaa was once a Hindu srhine.

Unfortuntely, Islam is not just a religion, but a judicial, military and political belief system as well. A judicial, military and political belief system that relegates me and my family to second-class citizenship at best and a shallow anonymous grave at worst.

It is no more "racist" to criticize the political system known as "Islam" than it is to criticize the political system known as "Communism."It is no more "Racist" to criticize the juidical system known as "Islam" than it is to analyze why one prefers English Common Law to Napoleonic Code.

I have been studying the political and judicial aspects of Islam for 2 years and have reviewed many classical Islamic texts such as The Reliance of the Traveller (a manual of Islamic law from the Maliki madhab, or school of Islamic Jurispredence.) I know what I am talking about when I say that Islam relegates me and my family to second-class citizenship.

If I don't have the right to criticize Islam, then I guess that black people don't have the right to criticize Jim Crow.

Thanks for the welcome, Just the facts. It's good to be here.

Jeez, you seem to be skirting my question somewhat. Which is it? Racisim or hate speech?

Well, why don't you help me work out which is which:

#8 k-k-koran... Religion of peaces of shit me thinks

Hate speech or racism?

#20 The Koran is a book of incitement to MURDER.

Hate speech or racism?

#8 k-k-koran... Religion of peaces of shit me thinks

Hate speech or racism?

#19 Islam is not just another religion, and Muslims -THE EVIL HORDE - are not just benign members of our plural society... LET'S ROLL OVER THE EVIL HORDE.

Hate speech or racism?

#9 PIG-ONE (Mohammed) created a sanction for RAPE, so that Jihadis would fight with both lust and conversion on their peckers (that is where Muslim males think from).

Hate speech or racism?

#23 Anyone who condones Islamania, endorses SPOUSAL BATTERY.

Hate speech or racism?

#3 "Rapists"... obviously a misprint/mistranslation from the Sharia texts. What they meant was "rapees," or, as they're commonly considered in Arabic countries: "whores".

Hate speech or racism?

#21 Calling Islam a "religion of hatred" gives religion a bad name. We need to call Islam what it is -- a death cult.

Hate speech or racism?

#27 arabs are basically nomadic cowards they follow anyone that is why they were so easily made into muslims by the mongols who invaded and converted them all before that they were more like africans with multiple gods and not monotheistic.

Hate speech or racism?

#99 Well, there is no such thing as a 'peaceful muslim'.

Hate speech or racism?

#12 totally inbred fucking animals

Hate speech or racism?

#19 How heinous. How typical. How Islamic. As an aside, those inbred idiots ought to start dating outside their extended families.

Hate speech or racism?

#20 Islam - peaceul butchering all the way (to an entirely Islamic world).

Hate speech or racism?

#32 These records reveal: Mohammed was a disgusting pig. That filthy pedophile once took a six year old girl as a "bride" and admitted to having raped at least one woman after having murdered both her husband and father. .. Do yourself a favor: HATE!

Hate speech or racism?

#4 Collectively they are a demented people.

Hate speech or racism?

#51 Islam has and always will spread through violence because the prophet demands that Muslims destroy the unbelievers.

Hate speech or racism?

#65 Crusade Now #57 I second your nomination. Muslims are a liability and incompatible with civilized societies.

Hate speech or racism?

#15 These Kooks are idiots, the U.S. could never go muslum LOL The haven't understood that we havent played cowboys and muslums yet. When we do there won't be all that many of them left LOL.....

Hate speech or racism?

#18 This is about Islam, not "radical" Islam.

Hate speech or racism?

#23 I think it very important that everyone realize, as a precept to discussion, that islam fundementally requires the conversion or destruction of all non-muslims. Ask any muslim, listen to any sermon. The teachings of the clerics go even further; for instance such actsas theft and rape against non-muslims are not veiwed as crimes by musch of the mainsteam muslim clergy.

Hate speech or racism?

#53 brianstein, you hit it on the head when you called the Arabs "static." They want to be modern and powerful, and still remain camel jockeys.

Hate speech or racism?

#44 Muslims should have the same rights to practice their "religion" in the West as Christians have in Saudi Arabia. That is none whatsoever.

Hate speech or racism?

#21 What a sick, twisted society and religion.

Hate speech or racism?

#25 Can someone explain the difference between this "Religion of Peace", and the Charles Manson cult of a few decades back?

Hate speech or racism?

34 You want to find the last vestige of chattel slavery? It's called Islam, the slaves are women and non-muslims, and they've had some extra time to make it even more monstrous than ever before.

Hate speech or racism?

#47 Animals! Filthy, disgusting savages! I have said it before, and I will say it again. Islam and civilization are not compatible.

Hate speech or racism?

And that was just a small sampling of threads from this September. While I acknowledge some of these comments were criticised by other LGF posters, that was certainly not the norm. What did you do about it?

Neale #107

Compelling post. Sure, I'll help you. Let's go through it (but I'll expect some quid pro qo--we'll get to that later).

#8 k-k-koran... Religion of peaces of shit me thinks

Clumsy, bigoted play on words. Though it's worth pointing out the Muslim belief that peace will be possible only AFTER Islam has been imposed on all mankind.

#20 The Koran is a book of incitement to MURDER.

Because of its general nature, this is religious bigotry--though literally true as applied to Islamofascists.

#19 Islam is not just another religion, and Muslims -THE EVIL HORDE - are not just benign members of our plural society... LET'S ROLL OVER THE EVIL HORDE.

Muslims=Evil Horde: religious bigotry. "Let's roll over the evil horde: this sounds like incitement to violence . . . Houston, I think we've got some hate speech!

#9 PIG-ONE (Mohammed) created a sanction for RAPE, so that Jihadis would fight with both lust and conversion on their peckers (that is where Muslim males think from).

That males think with their peckers is a universally accepted truism that transcends race, religion, and culture. That Mohammed created a sanction for rape is literally true.

#23 Anyone who condones Islamania, endorses SPOUSAL BATTERY.

Superficially true, if what he means by "Islamania" is fundamentalist Islam. The only human right Muslim females have under Sharia law is the right to have their "purity" enforced for them through force of violence.

#3 "Rapists"... obviously a misprint/mistranslation from the Sharia texts. What they meant was "rapees," or, as they're commonly considered in Arabic countries: "whores".

Literally true.

#21 Calling Islam a "religion of hatred" gives religion a bad name. We need to call Islam what it is -- a death cult.

Too general: religious bigotry. But there ARE living strains of Islam, such as the cult currently arising around the Palestinian suicide bomber, that closely resembles the Thuggee death cult of Kali--though the Shaheedi (sp?) takes it one step further than the Thug: he also kills himself.

#27 arabs are basically nomadic cowards they follow anyone that is why they were so easily made into muslims by the mongols who invaded and converted them all before that they were more like africans with multiple gods and not monotheistic.

Arabs=cowards: racial prejudice.

#99 Well, there is no such thing as a 'peaceful muslim'.

Religious bigotry.

#12 totally inbred fucking animals

Racism.

#19 How heinous. How typical. How Islamic. As an aside, those inbred idiots ought to start dating outside their extended families.

Heinous=Islam: religious bigotry. "Inbred": racism.

#20 Islam - peaceul butchering all the way (to an entirely Islamic world).

Too general. Certainly true of Islamofascism.

#32 These records reveal: Mohammed was a disgusting pig. That filthy pedophile once took a six year old girl as a "bride" and admitted to having raped at least one woman after having murdered both her husband and father. .. Do yourself a favor: HATE!

Comparing Mohammed to the dreaded and profane pig creeps dangerously close to religious bigotry. And the "HATE!" is incitement--obviously an example of hate speech.

Etc., etc.

I'll concede the point: you've dredged up some genuine examples of both racism and hate speech.

Now for the quid pro quo. Please directly answer the following questions:

1. Why are you singling out LGF?

2. You're aware of the vileness over at Yahoo and Indymedia and MetaFilter and virtually any other Leftist/Centrist chatsite (not to mention the Muslim chatsites like Clearguidance). Are you going to continue your crusade against racism and hate speech over on your side of the fence?

Oh yeah, Neale, one more question:

You asked me, "What did I do about it?" I wasn't paying enough attention back in September to have done anything, but if I had been, what would you have wanted me to do, other than disagree? And what are you going to do about the anti-Semitism-masquerading-as-anti-Sharonism that's becoming so fashionable among the Nader-voting, Strawpleberry Mocha Frappucino-sipping, Mother Jones-reading, hipster-dirtbagger Francophile Lefty progressives that you hope will start patronizing your blog?

Neale (#107)

You creep me out.

Let me think... I spent most of high-school with the nickname "Jewboy", a wonderful term I'm sure you can sympathise with, so please don't give me any crap about not knowing prejudice or what it's like to be on the receiving end of racial slurs.

That makes me think even less of you.

Here's a newsflash: Being Jewish does not disqualify you from being an Anti-Semite. Just ask that Self-Loathing Jew, Adam Shapiro.

I was obviously addressing post #92, not #107.

Neale (#92)

So what? Racism is racism, no matter who the speaker is. When was the last time you took Nasty to task, or Ranbutan? Or any of those here who espouse the crap that, if directed towards the Jews, you would go apeshit about?

Nasty I admit to skimming past most of the time. As for Ranbutan, I mostly do the same with his posts, but I have actually "taken him to task" for his over-the-top rants.

Now what Neale?

Shahid, not Shaheedi. My mistake.

Neale (#92)

What is my sort? The Australian Jewish Left?

Apparently.

We're absolute bastards you know.

I don't know about the rest of them, but...

Don't trust us.

I don't trust you. No fear.

We'll ply you with hallah and beer until you puke

Challah and beer!? Shabbat dinner must be um, interesting at your table.

then steal your wallet.

Cute.

Neale,

Good show on the selected comments you -- and most other LGFers -- find disagreeable, ugly, hateful or racist. Most of us don't give a second thought to this sort of drivel; some of us take a swipe. In incidence and influence, they matter nary a whit to virtually all of us except you and a few others. We don't agree, we don't condone, and we don't waste our time with it. This is what freedom of speech does -- it shines a light on stinky speech and exposes its failure of truth.

Let me also say that I think you and a few of the other torchers on this subject have raised the sensitivity of many LGFers on this issue. For example, is it just me, or are GI JOE and Nastification sticking quite well to issues and leaving the garbage on the street? I wish we didn't have the garbage, but I certainly don't blame Charles and I certainly don't think this is a hate or racist (Muslims are not a race; Muslims come from many races) site.

Did any of Goldenwebb's clarifications surprise you? Truth is the ultimate defense.

I'm more than happy to nominate you the official censor for LGF, using your freedom of speech to flag all those instances that you find objectionable. It's selfish; I prefer the LGF sharpies illuminating and entertaining me on more important issues.

A question: Which in your estimation is (a) worse morally and ethically (b) contributes to more hatred in the world, the citations above or This Week's Peaceful Religion Watch?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

In this week’s look at the disgusting anti-Semitism, bigotry, and incitement to violence pouring from the official media of the Arab world, our first example is from an unidentified mosque in Gaza, complaining that the Arab states haven’t used their armies to attack Israel since ... well, since the last time they attacked Israel and were crushingly defeated.

The imam then complains that the Arab rulers have disappointed the Palestinian people by failing to use their armies, beseeching God "to destroy the enemies and to save Jerusalem." The imam also blames the world "for ignoring the moans of our children, as well as our tragic situation, although it claims that it fights terrorism." He also says: "We are victims of the Zionist terrorism. We are victims of the occupation's terrorism. Our children were killed in Rafah several hours ago. Does not this amount to terrorism?" Islam, he says, warns us against fragmentation and differences, especially during battles, stressing that the Palestinian people stand fast on this land and will defend "Jerusalem and our right, sanctities, and the nation's dignity."
From the Grand Mosque in Sanaa, Yemen:

The imam then urges Arabs and Muslims to close their ranks and to stop bloodshed by "forcing the Zionist enemy to leave the Holy Land."
The Umar Bin-al-Khattab Mosque in Doha, Qatar invited a special guest this week; a fire-breathing Egyptian cleric who endorses the Bali nightclub bombing and praises Hamas:

Commenting on the recent bombing in Indonesia, the imam says, "Islam does agree to such acts." Turning to the situation in Palestine, the imam says, "the Palestinian resistance factions should avoid any conflict among themselves," criticizing some Palestinian security men, who threatened to wipe out HAMAS from the face of the earth. He says: "HAMAS and its counterparts cannot be wiped out, for they are the mouthpiece of the Islamic nation all over the world. HAMAS will not die as long as this nation has a pulsating vein. HAMAS will not die. Who can wipe out HAMAS while the nation exists? If HAMAS is wiped out, then the intifadah and the resistance will be wiped out and everybody will surrender to Israel."

Concluding, the imam prays to God: "O God, support our brothers in Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, and elsewhere." He goes on: "O God, destroy your enemies, the enemies of Islam. O God, destroy the aggressor Jews. O God, destroy the extremist, unfair Crusaders. O God, destroy your enemies, the enemies of Islam.
And at Umm al-Ma'arik [Mother of Battles] Mosque in Baghdad, Iraq, the Sheikhazoid is peddling monkeys and pigs again:

Shaykh Bakr Abd-al-Razzaq al-Samarra'i delivers the sermon. He praises God, the messenger, and his companions, advising people to fear God and apply His orders. Hailing the "mujahid, steadfast Iraqi people" and assailing the "Jews and Crusaders" as "the sons of monkeys and pigs," the imam condemns the enemies of Islam, particularly the American priest, "who has described Messenger Muhammad, God's prayer and peace be upon him, as a terrorist."

I guess somebody still listens to Jerry Falwell.

Neale (#92)

I think that there is over-analysis on LGF about anti-semitism in the media - such as accusations that when a news-item uses the word "militant" instead of "terrorist", it's pro-Palestinian and anti-Semitic.

Neale, are you an Australian living in the US, or in Australia? There is Anti-Semitism in the media here. Fact. And "militant" does offend me, when terrorist is the accurate and appropriate term.

How do you describe the Palestinians who blow up innocent Israeli civilians? As "Those Poor, Oppressed People", as "Militants", as "Terrorists", maybe "Freedom Fighters", how about "Heros"?

Which is it Neale?

This will probably drive you crazy, but I am concerned about the Anti-Semitism I see coming out of Australia. I know a guy on LGF who lives close to Australia, and he has many heart-warming stories about the Jew Hatred that goes on with the Palestinians and their supporters there.

Jews are hated enough by the rest of the world without needing the help of the Self-Loathing amongst them.

Oops, I always get a bit careless when I know zulubaby is around. I can't wait to read her posts and suck in that passion.

"is" should come after the (a), ", and" before the (b)

"A question: Which in your estimation (a) is worse morally and ethically, and (b) contributes to more hatred in the world, the citations above or This Week's Peaceful Religion Watch?"

Just the Facts (#115)

I'm more than happy to nominate you the official censor for LGF, using your freedom of speech to flag all those instances that you find objectionable.

What are you saying? Since I usually enjoy your posts, I'm not going to jump all over that one, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you meant by that.

I'm hoping that you were being sarcastic.

Nobody is the censor of LGF, official or otherwise. And least of all Neale.

zulubaby,

(Blushing) Only half sarcastic. (Note to file: find the other half of your sarcasm before posting near zulubaby again.)

I wish Neale would spend all his time scanning each comment in each of Charles' posts (especially if he'd go back to the archives) posting little gotchas on all the comments he doesn't like. He exercises his freedom of speech and stays busy fulfilling what appears to be his life's work on finding these piles of crap -- which only he, Anil and Jerk seem to think significant. (Did you ever see the TV show Fantasy Island? I picture Neale as the short guy in the white suit occasionally looking up and pointing to "The racism, the racism.") It's the old marketplace of ideas theory of free speech. Then we can ignore him just like we ignore the stinky posts they complain about.

Meanwhile, you and the other sharpies can spend your time addressing more significant issues than whether wackos occasionally post disagreeable comments or why this is not a hate site. Enough already, don't you think? Let's engage them in something more sporting.

Just the Facts (#119)

(Note to file: find the other half of your sarcasm before posting near zulubaby again.)

LOL!

I agree, it's getting tiresome. However, I have been duking this issue out with Anil for quite some time now, so I feel the need to stay with it. Neale, on the other hand, just irritates me. He sounds like an immature teenager who is swallowing the liberal crap fed to all those that attend college, world over. Anil made some rather serious charges about Charles and LGF, and Neale joined the choir. Not only that, but he gave Anil a pat on the back for his efforts.

You say that he is exercising his right to freedom of speech. That's fine with me, except that he would not afford the same right to many of those here. He and Anil would like that privilege to be denied to those with whom they disagree. They are campaigning for Charles to moderate every comment on this site (like he doesn't have enough to do), to ban the frothing few, to silence the opinions of others. You don't have to agree with everyone here, you don't have to like what every poster has to say. But don't tar everyone here with the same broad brush strokes. If Neale has a right to voice his opinion, so does everyone else here, including those with whom he disagrees.

Now we get to the interesting part. Neale, and Anil, don't post opinions on this site. Never. Not once. They only come in here to wrestle the "racists" to the ground. Has anyone ever randomly insulted you? What was your reaction? Did you stop and listen politely, or did you immediately defend yourself? Neale should feel free to swing a punch. But he must understand that there may be a few friends hanging around that he hadn't noticed, and there's every chance they're going to wallop him right back.

Neale and Anil should not feel that the right to freedom of speech includes their coming in here, militant-style, to scream, "Racists, the lot of you. Off with your heads!" This is, after all, a discussion board. I've never heard Anil or Neale rant and rave over Mookie, or greatbigjerk, or Mark Konrad. They only rage against those who are impolite about the evil fanatics calling for our death and destruction in the name of Islam. Those are the haters of the world, that is racism, that is bigotry, and xenophobia and anti-Semitism, and anti-Christ and anti-EVERYTHING. I have never disagreed with Anil's charge that there are racists comments on LGF. He has never understood that I am on the same side as he, on the issue, but, I will not sit quietly by and allow that charge to be applied to me, Charles, and most of the people that post here. Am I a racist because I don't like what is preached in Mosques on a weekly basis? That's racism? Fine, then I'm a racist.

Then we can ignore him just like we ignore the stinky posts they complain about.

And therein lies the rub. Ignoring the racist comments here is not enough for Anil and Neale. They would have it so that we stomp all over those posters on every and any occasion that they posted something offensive. I, for one, will speak out against those comments if, and when, I see fit to. Not when Anil thinks I should. Not when Neale thinks I should. I don't need to be dictated to by the likes of Anil & Co, about what I should say, when, and to whom. I don't like the "nuke the Muslims" remarks anymore than Anil does, to be sure. They make me cringe, they embarrass me. Sometimes I'll comment on them, sometimes I'll shut my eyes while I scroll to the next comment, but I will respond, or not, when I choose to. I am fortunate enough to be able to think for myself.

They are under the impression that all of us here have a "cause". Anil talks about the "racism" here as hurting our "cause". I don't have a cause, and I don't trust people who do. Never have. I stand on the side of the truth. That it is not always pretty, and that Charles exposes the horror of the evil that exists, makes certain people uncomfortable. Tough fucking luck. It's real, it's the truth, it's happening, and it's happening often. I am far more concerned about that than I am about some raver who posts the occassional offensive remark on LGF.

I also understand that sometimes people lash out in anger, say nasty things that they don't necessarily mean, that sometimes the seeming desire to kill all Palestinians is actually an (albeit violent) cry of pain for the loss of innocent lives by a homicide bomber. In the name of Allah? You murder in order to honor your G-d? In the name of the "Holy Jihad" (if ever there were a contradiction in terms)? So while that's happening, I am prepared to be human enough to understand that, in light of that, emotion boils over, the good, the bad, the ugly. We are people, not robots. Surely I shouldn't be expected to be polite about the maniacs that mindlessly kill my people? When Palestinian civilians are killed or injured, I hurt for them too. But I don't love the Palestinians. Not at all. I don't wish to see them all die. I wish for them to live in peace, and allow the Israelis to do the same.

Understand this: I think Charles is incredible. I respect and honor him and all that he does. (He also happens to have a phenomonal sense of humor, which gets me every time). The posters here have me laughing every day. If this isn't entertainment, I don't know what is. Since I "know" many of them, I understand the gallow humor, the sarcasm, the often droll, dry hilarious comments. Q, as an example, is one of the funniest (and smartest) posters here. We all have our favorites. But see, above all else, I am loyal. Charles is a good person. I dare anyone to tell me otherwise. Oh, actually someone did. Back in August, someone had some really shitty things to say about him. It pissed me off.

I will continue to expose Anil for the hypocrite that he is, and if Neale cares to join in the fray, he does so at his own peril.

One more thing. I didn't watch 'Fantasy Island'. Since I didn't grow up here, I am unfamiliar with many of the TV shows.

Zulubaby scores a touchdown for LGF!

[Link: vinylfrontier.com...]

Way to go!

PDM,

LOL!!!!

I have tears running down my face! LOL!

That PDM Mastepiece deserves front page treatment.

You're the best!

Goldenwebb, I'm glad that you were prepared to answer my questions, so I will answer yours.

1. Why are you singling out LGF?

I am not "singling out" LGF, although it may appear that way. I think LGF is beginning to push the boundaries of the acceptable, and I am part of a group of people trying to prevent it from reaching the point of no return.

2. ... Are you going to continue your crusade against racism and hate speech over on your side of the fence?

I've already started.

what would you have wanted me to do, other than disagree?

Well, disagreeing would of been a start. Supporting it with facts would of been another. Ensuring that Charles knew about the post and monitored the poster for further comments would also been good. Eternal vigilance? Is that too much to ask?

And what are you going to do about the anti-Semitism-masquerading-as-anti-Sharonism that's becoming so fashionable among the Nader-voting, Strawpleberry Mocha Frappucino-sipping, Mother Jones-reading, hipster-dirtbagger Francophile Lefty progressives that you hope will start patronizing your blog?

Who says I hope they will start reading my blog? If they do, and they let their true colours be known, I'll be sure to either (a) publically vilify them, (b) ban them, or (c) both.

That makes me think even less of you.

Why?

Being Jewish does not disqualify you from being an Anti-Semite.

And being Jewish doesn't prevent you from eating donuts. What's your point? Are you saying I'm an anti-Semite? Now that would be a laugh.

#15 Which in your estimation is (a) worse morally and ethically (b) contributes to more hatred in the world, the citations above or This Week's Peaceful Religion Watch?

The latter, obviously. However, if you let hate or racism fester and grow, it doesn't matter where it comes from, it is just as evil. Or is one form of racism less evil than another?

Neale, are you an Australian living in the US, or in Australia?

Australia.

How do you describe the Palestinians who blow up innocent Israeli civilians?

Fuckwits.

but I am concerned about the Anti-Semitism I see coming out of Australia. I know a guy on LGF who lives close to Australia, and he has many heart-warming stories about the Jew Hatred that goes on with the Palestinians and their supporters there.

Where, out of interest, is "close to Australia"? New Zealand? Indonesia?
Yes, there is anti-Semitism in Australia, but it is few and far between. Since the almost complete obliteration of the One Nation party, incidents are dropping from the 253 in 1999. The problem, it should be noted, with anti-Semitism in Australia is from the Christian Right and neo-Nazi groups, not the Left (whether they drink Mocha Frappucinos or otherwise).

Neale, and Anil, don't post opinions on this site. Never. Not once.

Actually, I recall defending the IDF from the accusation of assassination by your fellow LGF commentators. So you're certainly wrong there.

Neale and Anil should not feel that the right to freedom of speech includes their coming in here, militant-style, to scream, "Racists, the lot of you. Off with your heads!"

When have I ever said everyone here is a racist?



Zulubaby, you do a lot to misrepresent me; again, I state that I believe that due to the constant focus on the worst aspects of Islam, LGF is beginning to attract an increasinly racist audience, and Charles needs to do something about it. While Charles is extremely effective at banning anti-Semitic comments, he is far less rigourous when it comes to anti-Islamic statments. I've never called you racist, I've never called him racist, I've never made the blanket statement that everyone here is racist. I've been careful to point out specific examples of the types of comments I'm talking about, and it is pretty clear some very ugly speech is occuring. You might not like me, you might not respect me, and I'm fine with that, but I don't believe that you simply defending LGF and ignoring the evidence as trivial is going to help LGF in the long run.



I've stated this so often on LGF and it's obviously falling on deaf ears. If you want to keep up the argument I'm happy to take it off the LGF boards. You can find my e-mail address at my site.

Neale,

You make the same mistake about me that Anil does. I hate racism as much as you do. But I find it hard to forgive the "shout out" that you gave to Anil for that disgusting screed he wrote about Charles.

There are ways of saying things. His attack on Charles was, in a word, ugly.

I will make an effort to check your comments more thoroughly (on LGF and your site) and if what you say is true about not making blanket statements, then I will retract what I said. If.

Close by? Yes, New Zealand. Really narly stuff coming out of there.

May I take the liberty of advising you that if would like to be taken seriously on this site, you would do yourself great justice by stating the differences in opinion, and accusations, between you and Anil. The last time I looked at your site, you were cheering Anil. I have no interest in misrepresenting you. I don't enjoy it myself, thankyouverymuch.

zulubaby,

This thread seems to be petering out, waiting for that distant moment when some Islamacist-crazy posts trash. However, I could not find any links to video of one of the cultural signatures of the 1970s, the Fantasy Island intro. I suspect Neale is also unaware of this cultural scar, since he did not remark on it.

Two suggestions:
1. Check out these links to get an actual picture. [Link: www.sandradeefans.com...]

[Link: www.yesterdayland.com...]

2. Then find someone (live, not virtual) in your office or circle of friends whose intelligence and humor you respect and who stands a good chance of having spent time in front of the TV in the mid to late 1970s. Ask them what they most remember of Fantasy Island. I'll be they'll say, "De plane, de plane" in a heavily nasal, high-pitched voice.

Then insert your mental picture of Neale.

Your response to my previous post was inspiring and immensely well written. I like this you -- controlled fury -- ever so slightly more than the one that's instantaneously reacting to the insult, as you so well put it. But I like both of you. Keep on.

My point is, at some point, this lengthy argument over racism/hate is fully explored. Neale and ilk are so firmly entrenched in their belief that nothing will change their minds. One winds up beating one's head against the wall -- but the potential good from that exercise is illusory. In many cases, it's not a difference of opinion based on different interpretations of the same set of key facts. It's an opinion born of intentional ignorance of the facts -- combined with the lack of both intellectual honesty and awareness of how much sillier they look to others than they do to themselves. They're the kind of people -- and I'll bet if Neale returns he'll illustrate -- who will disagree with me on everything in this paragraph. It's not them, you see, it's me.

Perhaps we have different goals in this. I admire the will of someone who says no injustice will stand unchallenged. Me, I have to run change a stinky diaper (literally). I realize that's not something that Jews in general and Israelis in particular can do, at least figuratively. I just have to pick my spots, but I'm certainly there in spirit.