#21, 34, 46, 72 are great demonstrations of the reaching out to Muslims that LGF is famous for.

Any objective person, liberal or conservative, can see there is something  off about this cesspool.

True. I like that way of putting it much better, and I think you’re right.

I’m tempted to bet you $10 (by Paypal) that I can find enough to convince you. How many would it take? 100? 200? 1,000? I’d even let you define what (minimum) constitutes a racist comment, and what constitutes “out of context” or “selective editing”. What do you say? Put up or shut up?

It would be somewhat out of keeping, and inapproproiate considering their audience, for these sites to focus on the year-old Theo Van Gogh story, unless there was a strong American angle. Not all sites obsess over  murderous Muslims the way Little Green Cesspools does. That is not a mark agaionst them.

Though I appreciate the help, two things strike me right off the bat. The first is your last sentence - you totally misunderstood me. Nothing I said comes anywhere close to implying that obsessing over “murderous Muslims” is equivalent to what I was advocating, which was a much better way to combat racism (accurate coverage of pertinent facts). The second is this:

…strong American angle.

I recall almost every site posting something about the London bombings. Fine, obvious American angle, if we’re working under the assumption that our foreign policy prompted the Muslim Brits to bomb the stations. But no one said a word when it was discovered that these people were attacking for Islam, that their motivation wasn’t purely hatred of American imperialism.

I don’t find your claim that the sites are focused, nearly 100 percent, on US domestic politics, and with the effects of US policy abroad. Period, believable at all. I can find oodles of posts about Jeb Bush and Tom Coburn being dicks about Terri Schiavo, which isn’t anywhere close to domestic or foreign policy. I can find all sorts of rants about conservative bias in the media. And I cannot find anything that admits, “Hey, maybe the problem is bigger than just the US pissing people off,” even though a good deal of evidence points in that direction.

Kos et. al. are staunch liberals, and they are concerned with US policy, domestic and foreign, as it is damaged by conservatives and the Republican party (and occasionally Democrats). And though I happen to agree with them, the fact remains that they often make the serious mistake that Big Gay Al just made, and which I think is a very serious mistake.

So, Big Gay Al (for the record, I’m a fan of the screenname)…I’m a tad peeved.

Your implication is that all Muslims, by default, are not civilized people, and so must explicitly state that they are, in fact, civilized.

(The voice of Brian Griffin, speaking to Peter): No (as he whacks him with a rolled-up newspaper).

Read my post again, Big Gay Al. You’ll notice that I mentioned Muslims protesting against terror, something I discovered while reading a site written by an actual Muslim professor, and not the further-removed Juan Cole. I’ve no idea where you got the idea that I was implying that Muslims are not civilized people, and I’m hoping to god you didn’t just assume it because I was suggesting that a great deal of Muslims are not moderate.

You obviously believe that most are, however, since you used the percentage “99.9.” I realize the number is there to make a point, not as an actual percentage. But you have no good evidence for a percentage anywhere close to 99.9 - many prominent Muslims are praising terrorists, just as many are denouncing them. And depending on where you look, the percentage slips much more in favor of praise. Calling the radicals 0.1 percent doesn’t make you tolerant; it makes you wrong.

You can’t fight racism with more ignorance.

And JadeGold -

Islam, like Christianity or most any faith, isn t monolithic.

Touche. I can’t believe I missed that. My apologies.

Really? Kos, Atrios posters call on Bush to die or that cons should be killed? Do tell? Where can I find these posts? Not just one or two, but along the lines of these numbers—

Search results for  vermin (1333 matches)

Search results for  scum (3198 matches)

Search results for  nuke them (aka genocide) (146 matches)

Search results for  filthy arabs (8 matches)

Search results for  kill them all (401 matches)

Search results for wipe them out (109 matches)

Let me know when you find these posts.

I ve been watching Kos, OW, DNC Blog, TalkLeft, etc., for the past few weeks now, and almost everything has to deal with Rove. What was surprising is that I saw nothing on Theo van Gogh. I don t know why.

Please let me help you. The sites you list are all focused, nearly 100 percent, on US domestic politics, and with the effects of US policy abroad. Period. It would be somewhat out of keeping, and inapproproiate considering their audience, for these sites to focus on the year-old Theo Van Gogh story, unless there was a strong American angle. Not all sites obsess over “murderous Muslims” the way Little Green Cesspools does. That is not a mark agaionst them.

Head of a Pakistani Islamic party denouncing terrorism:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/195606.shtml

Muslim Brotherhood’s Qaradawi denounicng Al-Qaeda:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/qaradawi02.htm

List of Prominent Muslims who have condemmed terrorism:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

[All above via Juan Cole]

Just curious: were you as adamant that all Catholics denouce the IRA, or that all Buddhists denounce the Tamil Tigers, or all Latinos denounce the ETA. Why, then, is it suddenly relevant that all Muslims condemn what civilized people know already to be barbaric. Your implication is that all Muslims, by default, are not civilized people, and so must explicitly state that they are, in fact, civilized.

Bigotry of this sort weakens our hand in the war on terror. If the LGF mentality prevails, moderate Muslims (i.e., 99.9% of them) will be left to choose between a slow extinction at the hands of the Islamists or the quicker variety espoused by LGF.

If you re defending the views Arabs are  subhumans who should be  exterminated or that racism is  understandable, I d offer the  intellectual poverty is exponentially greater on the right side of the spectrum.

You wore that one out, JG, time to sing a new tune.

Stand up and take it like a man:If this is the kind of nonsensical intellectual thuggery you people revert to… it s no wonder your ideology is so marginalized.
Plain and simple. Argue the point or don’t. Stop the ad hominem attacks.

I don t know if he s completely right, but I haven t heard of any official condemnation of OBL yet by Islam.

Islam, like Christianity or most any faith, isn’t monolithic. That is, there isn’t one go-to guy for all things Islamic; as such, there’s not one “official condemnation” of OBL to be had. Yet, if you’re suggesting that various Muslim leaders haven’t condemned OBL, you’re very much mistaken.

And let’s face it–if someone wanted to set up a hatesite against Christians, it’d be very easy. Just point out the BTK killer in the midwest was a deacon or somesuch in his Christian church. Point out the God Hates Fags crazies. Geez, one could spend days on the Catholic church and the Mormons. The point being it is painfully easy to take a few instances of atrocious behavior and pretend it is representative of an entire faith or race.

Remember the topic of this thread, however. It’s about one of the two major political parties in the US linking to a site where racism and bigotry runs rampant. Why is that?

Wrong again. I never said he wasn’t responsible for his website. I said that your accusation that CJ is a racist and that LGF is a “hate site” because of certain comments is nonsense.

He just throws crap out there and suddenly racists appear and he can t do anything about it.

It’s no different than Kos, Atrios, etc. who “throw crap there” and have people appearing that call for Bush to die or say that conservatives should be killed. Again, using your twisted logic, those comments are merely an extension of Duncan and Marcos themselves.

One such commenter (with over 1200 comments to LGF) commented on the tsunami by speculating about how many Muslims had been killed.

What’s his name? I won’t take you at your word since you distort the truth so often.

You re also locked into denying LGF bans people it does. And I noted examples previously. In fact, LGF bans those rightwingers who aren t down with the whole  Arabs as subhumans theme.

You didn’t show me examples. You showed me examples of other people making the same accusation. But just to show you how wrong you are, you can go to this thread here. On there is a somebody (name is Tonic) chastizing those who are gloating over the Tsunami’s. No comments deleted. Still a registered user. However, a user by the name of Anonymous Al who is spouting off all kinds of nonsense has been blocked from posting.

As was I, Frank D. If you’re defending the views Arabs are “subhumans” who should be “exterminated” or that racism is “understandable,” I’d offer the ‘intellectual poverty’ is exponentially greater on the right side of the spectrum.

JayC:

Obviously, you’ve locked into the meme that Johnson isn’t responsible for his website. He just throws crap out there and suddenly racists appear and he can’t do anything about it.

Here’s a suggestion; take a look (or better yet, search on) the regulars (frequent commenters) at LGF. Look at their comments. One such commenter (with over 1200 comments to LGF) commented on the tsunami by speculating about how many Muslims had been killed. So, it’s not exactly that some person wanders into LGF one day, drops a racist comment and moves on.

You’re also locked into denying LGF bans people–it does. And I noted examples previously. In fact, LGF bans those rightwingers who aren’t down with the whole ‘Arabs as subhumans’ theme.

A few matters of interest:

I’ve been watching Kos, OW, DNC Blog, TalkLeft, etc., for the past few weeks now, and almost everything has to deal with Rove. What was surprising is that I saw nothing on Theo van Gogh. I don’t know why.

With that in mind, I offer a few observations, in hopes that this won’t turn into another flame war where Jay C spends an inordinate amount of time defending himself against people who (if I had to take a shot in the dark) won’t be convinced.

There are much better ways to fight against racism, and perhaps by extension LGF, and this isn’t one of them.

Debate over who is racist is pointless. I think a far better option is to sit back and see where the hell the sentiments come from, and if they have any grain of truth.

This is where it gets problematic. Observe:

a Gaza mosque has welcomed the London attacks.

Islamic historian claims that there are no such things as “civilians” in Islam.

I don’t know if he’s completely right, but I haven’t heard of any official condemnation of OBL yet by Islam.

People that hang out in LGF are reading these kinds of things all the time. Now, to save my own skin, let me state that I also read things like this:

Muslims protest London attacks.

But to find that, I have to read sites like the Angry Arab - obviously not LGF, and certainly not Kos or OW.

The observation about van Gogh comes into play here - if I didn’t have the balance of pro-Palestine blogs, I’d be a lot more inclined to think Islam was inherently dangerous and should be dealt with as such, but the Left blogs I read are no help whatsoever in that direction.

Point is, OW looks damn near as blind as LGF when the only defense that appears on his site against racism is “my, don’t these comments look like what the Nazis used to say….” And what with items in the news like van Gogh, or the fact that the London bombers were home-grown Brits, and the Left’s relative silence compared to the Right…well, you’re feeding right into their perception.

Then again, I suppose a lot of you would say that you’re not responsible for their perception, and that any mistake they make in judging you is their own fault. In which case, I wonder why you even bother to post comments.

If you really want to defeat racism, a good start would be reporting on something other than where racism in the Right exists.

Again, you’re missing the point of this thread. An official website of the Republican party has linked to LGF. The question of Johnson’s feelings on Muslims is moot (although, with that “Irene Khan is a Muslim” entry, no intelligent person can doubt he is a bigot). They have not just linked to Charles Johnson’s cut and paste “analysis.” They’ve linked to the whole site, comments and all.

What I want to know is if the Republican Party subscribes to the view that Muslims are “vermin,” “subhuman,” and “deserved the tsunami.”