Here, in a nutshell, is why I can’t step up and absolutely condemn Little Green Footballs. The folks that do this kind of thing don’t get to sit at the table and have ‘legitimate grievances’. No grievance justifies this kind of behavior. It is, in a word, barbaric. They videotaped butchery to satisfy their rage and inflame others:
Aljazeera earlier described the tape as “too bloody” and said it will not air it “in order not to upset viewers sensitivities”.
In a statement accompanying the tape, the abductors of the four Italians justified the killing.
“When your president says pulling the troops out of Iraq is non-negotiable then this means he does not care for the safety of his citizens as much as he is concerned with satisfying his masters in the White House,” the statement said.
“We have killed one of the four hostages we have in order to teach a lesson for those who are involved. We know they are guards working for the American occupation in our country.
“We ask you one more time to revolt once again in the face of your leaders and reject this unjust war on us so that we can protect your citizens. We are waiting for that from you or else we will kill them one by one,” added the Green Brigade.
Who are we to judge, you ask?
If you have to ask, you aren’t going to understand my reply.
UPDATE: More here – a show of true bravery by the executed hostage.
Lets see… 4 dead Italian (Italians for chris sake) = umpteen many dead Iraqi’s. These boys should have studied math not the Koran.
I don’t get it. Why does them being barbaric justify our being barbaric? (Is that what you’re saying?)
I agree that their barbarism releases us from the normal rules of courtesy. Civility is a two way street. Theirs is a sick culture.
what does the term barbarian mean ?
how does one react to barbarism , unmitigated barbarism – barbarism beyond reason .
are you suggesting inaction ?
perhaps a “plea ” for civility ?
there is only one way to deal with unreasonable barbarians – wipe them out .
yes that does mean KILLING them.
but it doesn’t mean butchery for bloodlust’s sake .
if you dont know the difference Consomm’ee ,then you are no better .
or would you rather -bare YOUR neck to them ?
It is these kind of people who we are fighting. Nothing is sacred to them. No one is not a target. Its kill or be killed. However, we also have to change the dynamics of the Middle East to reduce the numbers of these savages. That is where Iraq comes to play.
But freebird, you’re not suggesting that we nab a few of their women, slap them up a bit, put them in front of a camera on their knees and threaten them with death if their comrades don’t do anything? Killing is killing, but we don’t need to be barbaric about it — not by a long shot. On the battlefield, of course the rules are different, but most LGFers aren’t on the battlefield, are they? And in any case, we would expect from our marines and soldiers cool professionalism, wouldn’t we? We’re not about to go mutilating the bodies of people that we’ve killed in Falluja? I hope that’s not what you’re advocating.
I think if we’re talking about civility, we’re talking about it in political discourse. There is after all, no equivalent between what LGF is doing, and what those hostage-takers are doing, and therefore different standards apply. What I’m asking A.L. is — well, I don’t understand what he/she is saying. So my question is, what do you mean exactly, A.L.?
AL’s post relates to the contention (made in the comments of a previous thread) that LGF may be racist in CJ’s and the commentors criticism of the Arab and/or Islamic world…the world of our enemies.
In fact, AL was challenged to remove the link to LGF for this with the usual accusation that if he cozies with racist he is also a racist.
One of the undeveloped thoughts on that thread was that CJ’s criticism is fair and not bigoted, rather based on the behavior and ideology of our enemies.
In other words, if it looks like a barbarian, quacks like a barbarian and acts like a barbarian, maybe it’s okay to call it a barbarian.
CBK
Consomm’ee what does lgf have to do with my statement ?
no , I am not suggesting grabbing their women or anything of the sort . I am not suggesting the we reply in kind .
what I am saying is , we kill the barbarians .
we dont set off to do that ,then stop half way through it to call “truce ” which is only a one sided truce to begin with .
we are dealing with a culture that understands only one thing -stregnth . and that is translated in this situation to force .
we are there NOW , that can not be redone or changed , so in order to truly preserve life ,a constant and irrestable offensive should be the strategy , the more we hesitate the more we will be seen as weak , the more brutal the barbarians will become . it is their hatred and comtempt we fight against and that will remain no matter what .
if it is a war we are in , and I believe it is ,the the objective must be to kill and destroy the enemy and not to sit there and second guess whether or not we are being “kind ” . war in and of itself is un-civil , barbarism is going beyond that and is not a required behavior for a result in war . we can prosecute a war and not be barbaians , and so far we have not been barbarians .
Consommee,
How many hostages did LGF take? How many did they kill? How many bodies did they mutilate? How many SNAF tapes/CD have they produced?
You’re so nuanced.
This issue isn’t all that complicated.
No negotiation with terrorists.
Oy, thanks CBK for a little explanation. If A.L. appears, that’s great, if not, I think I’ll opt-out of this conversation. I can tell already that it is quite a fire-starter and I don’t really have any interest in it except for understanding A.L.’s stand on the subject.
Marek, see my comments above:
There is after all, no equivalent between what LGF is doing, and what those hostage-takers are doing, and therefore different standards apply.
freebird, I think I may have misunderstood you as much as you misunderstood me. I’ll leave it at that.
sorry Consomm’ee but I was responding specifically to your statement [not in conjunction with A l ‘s .]
out of context ?
suffice it to say I dont believe Lgf to be a racist site ? Republican yes , rightist yes , but not racist . They rail against a philosophy not a race of people . unfortunately that philosophy ,and a vile one it is , prevails amongst a large number of specific people -arabs and muslims .
I thought my point was pretty clear, but here it is; I’m not interested in sitting down across a table form these folks and ‘working things out’. I’m interested in defeating them.
That may mean killing them, or killing and cpaturing enough of them that the others give up and vanish into society, or some other alternative that we haven’t determined yet.
A.L.
Armed Liberal,
Nice post. I’m not sure whether I had any influence on this post or not, based on our e-mail discussion. But I think we agree, based on this post: While some of the commenters at LGF go overboard, the fact is that we are in a situation where people are not acting as civilized folks who we can discuss things over dinner. And I’d say that most folks on LGF recognize that, despite the rhetoric suggesting a “tiny minority of extremists” in Iraq or among the Jordyptians are what prevent the majority from speaking their mind – if that’s really the case, how much longer can the “silent majority” choose to remain silent before we have to assume that they’re acquiescing to the minority?
Consommee, what is your point ?
Taking hostages, blackmailing and killing them is terrorism, by the book.
Denouncing it as LGF does is helpful to us, as it defines our enemy.
Fighting this enemy is a course of action we have to take in order to defend ourselves.
In this fight civilians die, but this is to be expected in every war.
You seem either confused or naive, and ridiculously stupid in your position.
Very well put A.L.
I am a fan of LGF as well as this site. It is noce to see someone that wants to “play nice” instead of throw around hot button names.
It occurs to me that these barbarians are still working from the old “pre 9/11” book on US behavior. I don’t think they have figured out that this sort of stuff just serves to strengthen our resolve. Anyone out there think along these lines or is it just me?
Speaking as someone who started that past thread heading the direction it did, I didn’t ask AL to delink LGF, I told him it was hypocritical to denounce Kos and link to LGF.
I don’t think you can seperate the comments from the posts there, nor do I accept that the “racist” or “ugly” comments are either rare or discouraged. Please regard the example of “Millie Woods,” who has some nasty things to say. She probably wouldn’t last ten-minutes here, but has posts in 257 of Charles Johnson’s threads. A small sample of her posts reveals that:
a.) her ugly words are not refuted, and
b.) most of the commenters agree with her.
SAO,
I looked at the last of the posts you selected from Millie Woods. I saw one commenter who agreed with them in two different posts. One commenter out of at least two hundred regulars, twelve hundred plus daily visitors, etc. This hardly qualifies as “most” of the commenters, at least using any common mathematical system.
I can’t say whether the content of MW’s post was true or false, seeing as how no link was provided. Positing that the content was true, I don’t understand how you can characterize MW’s comment as “racist” when it specifically notes that it’s not racially based but based on the practices of the religion.
After checking only the last of the three posts that you linked to, I can’t say that you have the credibility (IMO) to make it worth it for me to check the other two.
I don’t know what you’d call anti-arabism, Arabs being a language group. The practice of marriage to the matrilinear cousin is distinct to Arabs, not Muslims. If you’re confused about what to call MW, please feel free to check the other to posts.
SAO,
OK, I couldn’t resist. I checked the first post too. It turns out that only one response existed for that one and that person disagreed (at least somewhat). For the second post, there were three responses and they were perhaps more favorable. So now you’ve managed to conclude that a grand total of five commenters of about 200 regular commenters (my estimate) is equivalent to most.
Could it be that most people who disagree with people who are over the edge just ignore them? I know that that was what I was doing most of the time with bigel, et al.
A.L., thanks for your reply but I don’t see what that has to do with LGF. It sounds like (again, I’m not sure) you’re saying you don’t want to be party to wishy-washy negotiate-with-terrorist (dare I say it?) liberal types, and therefore you think that puts you soundly in the LGF camp. But I don’t see why you can’t think for yourself. Or in other words, why the false dichotomy? I don’t find it inconsistent to condemn both and still hold the perfectly reasonable position of understanding the gravity (and terror) of war while combating hate everywhere we should see it. The first one is life and the second one is good living.
No, consomme, nothing so nuanced. LGF made his bones as a blogger by doing two things: 1) posting and sistributing translations of the amazingly hateful and outrageous things said under official color (in state-censored media or by state-supported clerics) in the Muslim and Arab world; and b) taking a hard stand on Islamist terrorism and publicising the voices of those who were it’s victims.
His site has become a focal point for a lot of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feeling, bleeding into hatred, which I can’t support.
But many on the left have called for Charles’ censure based on his own writings, and his own expressions of outrage at acts like this.
I share his outrage.
And unlike people like the Mo mowlam, who called for us to sit down and negotiate with Bin Laden, or those who call for solving the issues in the Middele East through ‘dialog with those who hate us’, I don’t see the percentage in it, and I do see it as profoundly immoral.
A.L.
A.L. Have you seen Fog of War?
Know you’re enemy, even if your goal is “killing them, or killing and capturing enough of them that the others give up and vanish into society, or some other alternative that we haven’t determined yet.”
I don’t think LGF encourages any sort of knowledge. I could see it functioning as a wake-up call for someone who had no concept of Islamicism. Let’s take one of our most prominent enemies today: Muqtada al-Sadr. Does Charles give any relevant information about who this guy is, what he wants or how he fits into Shia politics? Check for yourself here.
As far as LGF is concerned, Sadr falls into a general category of “Islamofascists.” One thing we need to recognize if we’re going to win the war on terror is that Islamicist movements have very different sources, goals, and methods. Hezbollah and the Sadrists certainly have little in common with their Sunni counterparts except a shared hatred of the US. Historically, most pan-Islamic movements (which is what I’d classify Bin Laden as) have ended in utter failure. The US has to capitalize on these divisions and to do that we need educated and informed people. That ain’t gonna happen if were listening to pundits who think the Hijab was invented in the seventies.
SAO: OK then. I will here make the same argument that I made to you and others in MYland the other night. You do not understand the function of LGF. The function is: Early Warning System for Outrage. Geneticists say, Form Follows Function. I argue that LGF works, both in function and form. LGF is what it is. Any disrespect shown to our armed services (or contractors), any antisemitism will be attacked with extreme prejudice. Kos could have avoided the whole thing with a sincere apology. You have not changed my mind– you are a being unable to accept empirical data, and a grievous waste of spacetime.
Consommee: I am a huge coward, and I am afraid of many things. I am afraid the democrats hate George Bush more than they love their children. I’m afraid meme transmission in Islam is unstoppable. I’m afraid of genocide and nuclear weapons. And I’m afraid to look. But how can you fight Abbadon if you have not the courage to look him in the face? How do you stop Atrocity when you have to look away, and make excuse? Charles never looks away. I need to see, I need to understand the mechanism, I need to approach a remedy. LGF makes me brave enough to look.
A.L. 🙂 Best for last! I’ve been working up this metaphor since last week– If WoC is the cognitive cortex, the Seat of Reason for the blog’verse, then LGF is the flash antibody/Tcell first responders– the immune response system. And the response is outrage. My comrades are passionate, and sometimes over the top. It helps. And humour helps too. Alot of the crude, rude, lewd and profane stuff is simple “shout at the devil”. LGF is healthy, it functions. And LGF has developed a form that works.
Thank you A.L. for supporting Charles. And I’m still a biker chick at heart! 🙂
SAO – understanding as in knowledge, absoloutely. And possibly some connection may come from it. But there are some behaviors that I believe put one on the other side of a line from which there’s no coming back.
Is Charles a primary source? No…
A.L.
SAO,
I’ll grant that Arabs are a race for purposes of screaming racism. No issue there. And I’ve never heard of them being described as merely a “language group”; Arabs are ethnically different from Turks, Persians, or Kurds. But that’s neither here nor there.
I have no idea whether what MW wrote is true or not, but I’ll note that MW was discussing Pakistanis, who are not Arabs. So either your information is wrong or MW’s is. I really have no idea which is true – but, again, you are the one who believes that MW has made a racially perjorative comment; re-reading MW’s statement, I see a clear statement that it’s not racially based, by comparing the tendency to marry cousins among other South Asians and showing that it flows from other particular practices, based on the religion (which may or may not be true).
If the statements are false, then this post can be labelled as bigotted. If the statements are true, it is a perfect illustration of Armed Liberal’s point with this post: Do the doyens of PC (such as yourself) believe that people should be allowed to make statements about groups? Or do we have to accept that group identity can only be allowed if they will receive some benefit, e.g. affirmative action? It’s not the right that pushes the notion of groups (as opposed to individual responsibility) – at least in the US.
SAO,
I’ll grant that Arabs are a race for purposes of screaming racism. No issue there. And I’ve never heard of them being described as merely a “language group”; Arabs are ethnically different from Turks, Persians, or Kurds. But that’s neither here nor there.
I have no idea whether what MW wrote is true or not, but I’ll note that MW was discussing Pakistanis, who are not Arabs. So either your information is wrong or MW’s is. I really have no idea which is true – but, again, you are the one who believes that MW has made a racially perjorative comment; re-reading MW’s statement, I see a clear statement that it’s not racially based, by comparing the tendency to marry cousins among other South Asians and showing that it flows from other particular practices, based on the religion (which may or may not be true).
If the statements are false, then this post can be labelled as bigotted. If the statements are true, it is a perfect illustration of Armed Liberal’s point with this post: Do the doyens of PC (such as yourself) believe that people should be allowed to make statements about groups? Or do we have to accept that group identity can only be allowed if they will receive some benefit, e.g. affirmative action? It’s not the right that pushes the notion of groups (as opposed to individual responsibility) – at least in the US.
Oops sorry about that double post. I’m still getting used to the interface here.
SAO: OK then. This is what I posted today on the VDH thread, arguing for taking Al-Sadr alive.
“If you read the Iraqi bloggers, a lot of the conflict right now is happening within the hierarchy of Shii’a religious authority. This is an ancient fight, relating to the relative inherited religious authority of the different sects of Shii’a. The “moderate cleric” machete-hacked to death a year ago was Al-Sadr’s closest rival in the opposing sect. Don’t mistake me, Al-Sadr is an opportunistic thug that richly deserves termination. But how much better if the Iraqis can try him and execute him themselves? We stay our hand to allow his capture and punishment by the Iraqi authorities.”
I think you and others pick and choose fragments to support your argument. With Charles’ extreme site traffic, this is probably possible for even an XY being of your questionable abilities.
As far as Sadr goes, the reference was to LGF posts, not comments.
As far as your comment goes, it seems right on and even I, a “questionable being”, agree. But captured by Iraqi authorities? I hope so, but don’t hold your breath…
SAO: OK then. How is a conmment different than a post? That was a post. I am a poster at LGF. Where do you think I get my knowledge? The Iraqi blogs are linked right there for us to reference. Come on, SAO, here is your chance to redeem yourself and accept empirical data!
What “empirical data” are you referring to, here? I’m a little confused as to how I “redeem myself” here, twisterella.
You know al-Sadr has had other clerics bumped-off, well you certainly didn’t hear that from Charles. BTW, that’s a fact, but it’s not really empirical data.
A.L., Consommee: How do you feel when you see outrage? I know A.L. feels anger, but Consommee, do you feel anger? sorrow? Can you look, or do you have to look away? What ever you do is fine, I can’t judge how anyone else deals with this. It is very hard to look. But one way posters at LGF deal with outrage is anger.
And also, the liberal left is derided equally with other groups. Why isn’t LGF accused of “hate-mongering” against, say, Democrats?
SAO: You have cited posts from MW. You say: “I don’t think you can seperate the comments from the posts there”. I furnish you with a post that refutes several of your theses. Empirical data is what you can observe. Can you or can you not accept empirical data?
A.L.:
This is like Sufi wisdom, which I always read and never have the courage to analyse. Here goes:
WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE? I think we can judge outrage, the texture and scope of awful, inhuman acts. But we cannot judge any being’s reaction to outrage. I like LGF the way it is, it functions for me. And I am not alone, for all SAO would have have you believe I am some sort of outlier or sport.
Bonne nuit, toute de monde
Ok. Lets accept the LGF premise that Islam is inherently violent and that there is more than just a “minority” of extremist in that religion.
So what’s the solution? Clearly if Islam is the problem than the post war plans for Iraq are doomed since we’ve done nothing to address the hatred that is generated from this religion.
For all the serious problems LGF raises about the arab/muslim world they rarely suggest what should be done.
Jack,
Yes, but that’s not the point of LGF. Charles Johnson’s mission, as I understand it, is focussed on Step 1 of 12–recognizing that there is a serious conflict between militant Islam and the West, and insisting that this point not be glossed over. Sadly, this remains a controversial position in some circles.
This is not to say that solutions aren’t important, just that they are less likely to be found on LGF, because the focus there is on publicizing the problem, not think-tanking a solution. LGF is just one piece of a larger picture, but the informational service it provides is both essential and, to the best of my knowledge, unduplicated.
I hope that someday, Charles Johnson starts a new blog and retires LGF for lack of material. What a sign of victory that would be–and I’m sure Charles would agree!
Ok. Lets accept the LGF premise that Islam is inherently violent and that there is more than just a “minority” of extremist in that religion.
So what’s the solution? Clearly if Islam is the problem than the post war plans for Iraq are doomed since we’ve done nothing to address the hatred that is generated from this religion.
For all the serious problems LGF raises about the arab/muslim world they rarely suggest what should be done
*************************************************
Oh there ARE suggestions, some of them are not politicaly viable. 😉
The Solution? TIME, EDUCATION and making violence extremely costly for those who pursue it against us.
The Last point could be included under the topic Education.
Dar Al-Islam has been at War with Dar Al-Harb for over a millenium. Petrodollars has instituted a resurgence.
Just because some would rather not look at it, or accept it, does not nullify the existence of this War.
What is happening in Sudan at this point in Time varies in NO way from the campaign of Muhammed and His Companions at the Dawn of Islam.
The same tactics the same terror the same genocide.
Nothing has changed. It will not change because they tire of it.
The past tactics are quite similar to someone trying to “cure” and alcoholic by trying to “understand” them.
Who are we to judge? The moral imperative dictates that we judge their actions and act accordingly. Not judging and not acting do, in fact, yield a result – so whether by omission or commission, we participate.
Al-Jezera are accomplices. They have performed the moral calculation: which is more important, reporting the murder as news or preventing the murder?
Sam Barnes:
Thank you for getting my metaphor. I thought A.L. would get it. LGF is just the immune response system. WoC is the cognitive function that seeks a solution.
Hi.
SAO said: “I don’t think LGF encourages any sort of knowledge.”
I disagree.
Isn’t “Armed Liberal” somewhat of an oxymoron?
“How do you feel when you see outrage?”
That depends. I feel sorrow and sadness when I heard and saw the pictures of Rachel Corrie’s murder. I felt something must be done, and protesting Catepillar was a good start.
The death of the 4 mercenary contractors was considered an outrage by many, but I felt they deserved what they got.
Allahlalala,
Thanks for being clear about what side you’re on.
Steve N.:
I apologize for not seeing your post earlier. You say: “You seem either confused or naive, and ridiculously stupid in your position.”
Consommee is NOT confused, naive, or ridiculously in his/her position. Consommee’s comments are always thoughtful, empathetic, and represent an ENORMOUSLY important input to the search for solutions. You should read Consommee’s comments and rethink your position.
cp, it’s best not to feed the trolls; that just keeps them coming back.
So now if I were SAO, I would be able to conclude that most of Winds of Change agrees with the troll, based on two dissenting replies.
Sao -your words :
As far as LGF is concerned, Sadr falls into a general category of “Islamofascists.” One thing we need to recognize if we’re going to win the war on terror is that Islamicist movements have very different sources, goals, and methods. Hezbollah and the Sadrists certainly have little in common with their Sunni counterparts except a shared hatred of the US. Historically, most pan-Islamic …-endquote.
I beg to differ SAO / little in common ?
Well islam upon closer inspection ,reveals itself as having two main goals and the two are encumbent upon every good muslim .
TRhey are the two jihads [struggles ]. The first is the jihad for personal and spiritual adherence to the five pillars of islam . The other is “the Goal of the Prophet “.
The Goal of the prophet is nothing less than bringing about UMMA ,or a world dominated by one religion-Islam .
That’s all well and fine ,if it were a matter of free choice for non-muslims-[infidels-idolators ].
Now follow their rational which is quite clearly stated in all their literature , in all their sermons and teaching and is spread throughout heir media . Anything that stands in the way or hinders in any small part ,the realization of the goal of the prophet is considered “UNJUST ” .
ANY method used to remove the obstacle is considered “JUSTICE ” . If you ask a suicide bomber “isn’t it against islam to kill the innocent and in the process commit suicide, they will tell you that it is not suicide and murder , but JUSTICE .
That is why such horrendous deeds occur throughout the muslim world [ie: the Sudan -Timor-Maylasia- Israel ].
Many think that Israel and the Plaestinians are the issue , but this is incorrect , the Palestinian cause is merely the cunard . Destroying Israel and ridding the middle east of jews is an old pan-arab pipedream still held onto and it finds expression in the Palestinian National Charter and the Hamas Charter . Israel is merely step one . That is why there is no peace in Israel because peace with Israel is not the desired goal .Its total destruction IS , and so too hatred for the U S comes as a side issue for supporting Israel .
In Islam the end justifies the means -any means indeed . Any and all apparent tolerance of the non-muslim world is distinctly qualified with ” until they decide ” . This of course is limited only by any political , military, or mob power that is existing where they reside .
I have seen other posters hereask of LGF , “where is your solution ” ??
THERE IS NONE , a FACT that is well understood by CJ and most of the posters there .
All I have just stated is absolutely true and one merely click onto Memri to see it in action every day in the muslim/arab world . Memri is only one of many non-biased sources .
The truth of the situation the world faces is indeed dis-heartening , but given the tenets of islam and the much smaller world we live in , the inevitable has finally occured .
Nothing short of a complete EPIPHANY of thought on the part of islam , will change the course of the road we are on .
And that will not be forthcoming any time soon ,indeed the Shiites of Iraq will not change even if it be for their own good and the good of their country . When their mindset allows an unqualified condemnation of murder and barbarism , only then can a solution even be sought .
You know, while I admire Rome for saying they will not pull their troops, how much better would it be if, instead, for every Italian killed, they send another 1000 or 5000 troops to Iraq.
You think the hostage takers might get the message even quicker if the did that?
Excaliber, so what’s your point? The Bush Doctrine would have us pre-emptively invading all sorts of countries RIGHT NOW and lots of people are hyperventilating about that, but people in the real world know that’s not going to happen — we can’t and we won’t do so — so what’s the big deal? I mean so what if they have designs to rule the world and THEY CAN’T and we’re doing everything in our power and will do everything in our power to stop them? What’s with all the hyperventilation? Are you actually worried we’ll lose? 🙂 Don’t mean to be overconfident — just realistic. Lighten up.
I don’t want to sound like an echo chamber. But A.L.’s been talking about LGF’s plusses and minuses for about 2 weeks now, and Sam Barnes nailed it for me in this thread (9:41am). So I’ll parrot his words:
“[LGF is focussed on] recognizing that there is a serious conflict between militant Islam and the West, and insisting that this point not be glossed over… The focus there is on publicizing the problem… The informational service it provides is both essential and, to the best of my knowledge, unduplicated.”
I visit LGF because Charles Johnson and his regulars find hyperlinks to important articles that I would otherwise overlook.
I find enough of the comments repellent that I don’t read them. This is true–for me–for most high-traffic open-comment political blogs (e.g. Max Sawicky, Rottweiler, Kevin Drum, and Kos).
LGF-shunners: where do you find links to primary sources and exposes of happenings in the Arab and Muslim worlds, so that you are informed citizens?
If a list of examples of such LGF links is needed, I can round some up, though it seems unnecessary.
Victor Davis Hanson’s current piece “Finish It or Forget It” discusses the barbarism of Islamists in some detail. I’m looking forward to the critics of LGF/Charles Johnson – which has a similar message – explaining to me how VDH is a racist as well.
bi x’s 3:
“what’s my point ” ?
Simple ,lets stop playing this diluded game of possible dialogue . No dialogue is possible , any truce made is nothing more than a farce with the sole intention and advantage going to the enemy for the purpose of regrouping or escaping to fight another day .
No , I do not believe they can ever rule the world , but they will make it as miserable as possible trying . And they are largely successful in that endeavor , due to false hope on the part of the west that they will be placated and reasoned with .
Making these things a Republican or Democratic issue only exacerbates the problem since it is an issue of national and world security as were the Korean and WW2 conflicts -there were no partisan politics . Indeed Clinton recieved the same treatment as Bush in as much as attacks aginst this country and the west .
Islam is not only destructive in its intolerance of others but it is self destructive in that process ,in that it has no boundaries of civility and barbarism and will just as easily slaughter its own and as usual, “reason out some sort of justification ” out of the all permissive Quran or Haddith ,and if not there, a firebrand Imam who will re-translate for the masses. There is no leader to contend with .
To waste time on “ways to find roads of reason ” is foolish and favors the enemy , andyes they are the enemy .
And finally , I disagree , we are not doing everything in our power , not by any means , for petes sake ! we are still coddling the Saudis who scare up a few token terrorists and kill them for the benefit of “western consumption ” while at the same time funding Wahabi schools and constructing a fifth column right here in the U S visa-vis hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and donations to our educartional institutions . The Iranians are training and supplying the insurgents in Fallujah -who are killing our soldiers as we speak , Syria is guilty of the same . What are we doing on those issues ? THAT IS ACTUIALLY WORKING ! We’re getting nothing more than lip service .
I’m not hyperventillating but suffering from the highest degree of CHAGRIN , wondering what you mean by “we are doing everything within our power ” !
Is that why 130 illegals boarded a jetliner in California undetected and flew to NYC ? Are you serious ?
People in this country need to get their heads out of their LCD tv’s , stop messing with their “things and baubles ” , abandon partisan politics [which I estimate to be at least 35% responsible for the success of the 9/11 attacks ]
The gaping holes in our northern and southern borders are still there ,and to be perfectly truthful we dont know who in the hell is in this country or how many nor where , any more today than three years ago .
So please explain how we ae doing all within our power . I am not worried we will lose – we will not , but how many will die due to our built in complacency and our unrealistic notions regarding the enemy we face . We are still not able to bring ourselves to the point of “inconvenience ” in order to thwart the attacks that are surely in the works . 9/11 should have taught us that . If the air marshalls that were originally planned for use in the late 60’s and early 70’s , ignorant arabs and muslims with boxcutters would never have succeeded. But the airline lobbies won -people got their “CHEAP-AIR-FARES”- airlines got to keep more profit and we lost bigtime down the road , and that too was part and parcel due to partisan politics and greed ,from all quarters.
It’s time for a “heads up ” , instead commiserating over how we will reach a non-attainable position of reason and agreement with an unreasonable foe.
Hi.
I’ve been puzzling over the LGF subject. So, let me get this straight — Charles Johnson, via his blog on LGF, provides a valuable resource to the online community by collecting and posting information relevant to political and religious extremism in the Middle East. Attached to his posts are comment threads which can be highly social and emotional in nature, and which strike some as culturally insensitive and needlessly provocative. So the question is whether to link to such a site is moral as you are exposing your readers, in your judgment, to both valuable information and hate speech?
I have a thought for Senior Administration Official: why don’t you start your own blog, titled “LGF Lite” or somesuch, which collects the links Charles Johnson finds, explains them in an expository manner, and hat tips LGF in a very obvious way? That way those who enjoy the valuable information only can go to your site, and more importantly, you can make the point that if all Johnson wanted to do was provide useful information, he could do so, yet chooses not to.
It seems to me this would hold him accountable for the (unintentionally?) irresponsible consequences of his actions.
If we think of a website as a public space, which it really is unless there is password protection, then we would see that Charles Johnson is not merely passing out flyers of news articles/photos and whatnot…he is also giving speeches…and managing a crowd of “talk-back”. Since the link is the same for all three activities, the space has to be taken as a whole I think. Some might disagree, as blog posts and blog comments are really two different animals roaming the same pen, but if we consider that Johnson is not merely providing news and information, but is rather engaged in persuasion, and the audience he is persuading is to be found in the same space, then there is a form of social coersion that is desired by LGF’s editor, even if it isn’t entirely successful (but this failure is not obvious on his site, and “success” itself, of which the laudatory comments are evidence, can be very persuasive). In pointing one’s readers to a page edited by Johnson, one must be aware of all this. There’s a saying: “to know a country, study its advertising.” I think in this case, one can examine the consumers and get a pretty good idea of the author’s biases. He is, in any case, leading the pack, and managing their ranks.
I’m personally of the opinion that all coersion should be recognized for what it is and shunned. The more independent thinkers we have in political discourse, the better, in my view. But I guess the broad ethical and social guidelines on the blogosphere aren’t clear, and I’m wary of coming right out and saying “link to LGF” or “don’t link to LGF” because I wouldn’t know how to back it up. If I were SAO, I would attack LGF along information lines — provide a better resource, or in this case, hold up a mirror to Johnson that doesn’t reflect all you consider nasty. Readership and “linksmanship” will decide the rest.
Twisterella — I really enjoy your poetic posts; I don’t understand all that you say, but I like your style.
How do I feel when I see outrage? Do you mean what makes me feel outrage, or how do I react to something outrageous? If I feel outrage, it’s usally because I don’t understand whatever I am sensing/seeing, or to put it another way, when I see something outrageous, I understand that what I’m seeing is not “it” at all, but the real thing is many layers below the surface — upon which words surf. People in full control of themselves may generally be understood literally, while taking into account whatever interest they have in what they’re saying and doing…. People not in control of themselves — angry, jubilant, etc. — have to be understood on a deeper level. The less effort they make to be understood, the more effort you need to make to understand them (taking into account differences in education). So I try to make that effort when I’m outraged about — or not understanding — what’s going on.
Consommee (8:41am):
Your first paragraph is a nice summary of the dispute, as I see it.
In your second paragraph, you suggest that SAO (et al.) create LGF-lite, links but no comments. This brings to mind the truism about sausage–people like eating it, but don’t want to see how it’s made. If our hypothetical webmasters select their -lite links from LGF, I’ll also put my soul at risk and go there too, thanks very much.
Paragraph four, “social coercion.” Please expand. It’s either quite novel, or it’s one of the anti-free-speech concepts that **Erin O’Connor** has already discussed (and discredited) in considerable detail.
since lgf seems to be an inescapable topic of discussion , lets forget the winding philosophical statements and the mental masturbation and simply ask the question :
is lgf misrepresenting the facts ?
are the facts [statements events actions deeds etc] being presented in a deceptive ,one sided manner ?
how people react to the facts [posters comments]is something unique to each poster and their particular bend ie:Dem or REp /right or left .
Comments there tend to be Rep and right leaning ,as comments here are Dem and left leaning.
are the reactions made in response to truthful statements or lies ?
I would not waste time responding to the comments -they are secondary , is Cj publishing fact or fiction ?
Consummee: Bien Merci! I enjoy your comments also, they are extremely thoughtful and rich with empathy. That is why I was so interested in the outrage question.
I am sorry if I am sometimes difficult to understand, but where you and others see the world as historical trends and geopolitical structures, I tend to see it in terms of streams and pools and tides of genes and memes, underlaid with the mathematical constructs of population genetics. (Except for the nuts-n-bolts of my work experience, as a defense con).
I am passionate about LGF, and I think Charles has been unfairly targeted by beings that don’t understand LGF’s function, to the point where it interferes with what I and others need him to do.
I hope this discussion wasn’t redundant, but mostly it was new to me, as I have not been here long.