At least they're taking it well.
I thought I'd have a look at how people were taking the election result over on the right and started with Little Green Footballs.
The startling bigotry of the posts there are really quite astounding.
The news that Minnesota has elected the first Muslim ever to be sent to be Congress is greeted with the statement:
They’ll be celebrating in Gaza tomorrow.Considering the recent Israeli strike in Gaza that has killed eighteen innocent women and children, I don't think they'll have have time to celebrate. They are too busy burying their dead. I seriously hope that the poster was unaware of these events when he made such a crass coment.
As if comments like that weren't bad enough, when one looks into the comments section the true levels of bile and hatred that fuel these people becomes appallingly apparent. Comments like these:
#7 doppelganglander 11/7/2006 07:27PM PSTYou'll notice that the very fact that the winner of the election is a Muslim is instantly taken as proof that the man must be a terrorist.
How long before he blows himself up on the House floor?
#9 savage_nation 11/7/2006 07:27PM PST
The terrorists have arrived. Make no mistake.
Nor is this disgraceful hate mongering reserved solely for Muslims. Americans who elected Democratic candidates have the following wished upon them:
#5 mbpaul 11/7/2006 09:25PM PSTSo here we have the very people who support Bush's exportation of democracy to countries that never asked for it, stating that some of their own citizens should not have the right to vote. And another hoping that people who voted contrary to the way he might have liked be nuked which he also hopes "comes soon".
I quite (Sic). I not going to vote again. It's time I gave up on this political bullshit. I just hope the nuke attack comes soon. Let it be on the East Coast where it belongs.
#11 Tairos 11/7/2006 09:27PM PST
I think this demostrates (Sic) pretty clearly that voting should be a privilege, NOT a right.
This gives us some idea of the warped sense of "patriotism" that the typical knee jerk Bush supporter has. Patriotism is electing Bush. Anyone who votes for an alternative should either have their right to vote removed or be nuked.
Meanwhile over at Pierrlegrand, we are told what is wrong with Democrats:
Democrats hate, Soldiers, Christians, Families, Heterosexuals, and the working middle class as well as the upper class and the Republicans have deftly managed to place themselves behind in the polls.Ah right, the Republicans are the reasonable party and the Dems are hate filled. I understand now why Bush supporters want to nuke us and remove our right to vote.
For a second there, I was worried that they were being unreasonable.
tag: Republican, mid-term, elections, November, Bush, United, States, Bush supporters, right wing blogs,
16 comments:
Ass.
The reason he is taken for a terrorist by LGF is his past support of terrorism and attendance of extremist rallies. If you took more than a cursory glance it would have been clear. Linking it to the events in Gaza today is pretty rough behaviour. You can disagree with the angle, but your post was shallow and sly. I also wish LGF was a little more toned down and didn't encourage OTT pronouncements of doom and gloom, but I do prefer it to this smearing and knee-jerk denial.
Thank you Biggest Flan,
That's the kind of intelligent comment that I witnessed over at LGF.
Jez,
The link to Gaza was made by the poster at LGF. As I said in my post, I hope he made this comment before he knew of the events that took place yesterday. That's not being "shallow and sly". That was an honestly felt hope.
You may wish LGF was "a little toned down", I would go much further. I found the opinions expressed and the manner of their expression to be shocking. Do you think the East Coast should be nuked? Do you think voting should be "a privilege and NOT a right"?
These are extremist views and they need to be more than "toned down" as you put it. With such views prevalent on the site, the Gaza comment could easily have been deliberate and intentional. As I say, I hope it was not. But in a site whose members wish to see the East Coast nuked for not voting the right way, nothing can be taken for granted.
And what are you referring to when you speak of the candidate's "past support of terrorism and attendance of extremist rallies".
Both of those descriptions are highly subjective. Your "past support of terrorism " and "extremist rallies" might not be seen as such by everyone.
Indeed, the very fact that he was elected makes me think the majority did not agree with your opinion.
Kel,
I could have been clearer. The link to Gaza had nothing to do with events yesterday and I my feeling was that the link you posited was a sly one. If it offended you I apologise and I'm glad that's not what you're about.
I am not going to get into a discussion of the individual views in the comment section, which are not Charles Johnson's views. It would be like someone ascribing "ass" as given above, to yourself. Nor would I expect him to respond to the hundreds of comments on each of his posts. I have frequently taken issue with some of the comments, but I wouldn't think the suggestion to "nuke the east coast" is a serious one, would you? A lot of his visitors are from the East Coast. ftr I am from the UK and I can't stand the visciousness of the US politics. It leads to all kinds of selective morality and nobody really listening. Johnson does have a facility to be notified about offensive comment, if you click on a user's profile (the football image next to each comment). The last time I called a comment disgusting, because it supported to mindless violence against Arabs, I did not have to use that facility. My view was quickly seconded and the offensive comment deleted within a minute.
"With such views prevalent on the site, the Gaza comment could easily have been deliberate and intentional... in a site whose members wish to see the East Coast nuked for not voting the right way, nothing can be taken for granted." That is a misperception on your part. I am not sure if it reflects a poor understanding of the site and its huge visitor base or if you are being as partisan and sloppy as the people you envisage. If I were assuming the latter we would not have this conversation. It should be clear that nobody there endorses nuking the East Coast. I am also very clear that posters on LGF are deeply frustrated by the willingness to ignore monumental enmity from the jihad camp. That is a sensitive issue and it is very valid to criticise a good many comments about it, although I would not bother with most of the moronic comments that litter the internet at large.
The crux of the matter is what this Ellison stands for and how reluctant you are to believe that he is genuinely a supporter of jihad and Muslim domination. It is simply inappropriate to write that off as paranoia. You may share as I do the frustration at corrupt business and politics, but if you believe that is where the jihad camp is coming from you are missing a crucial part of the big picture. I propose you spend some time discussing the matter on a popular Muslim forum. There is a post currently at LGF that gives more explicit background on Mr Ellison.
This comment is in good faith. I believe that so are Charles Johnson's comments at LGF. If you want to engage him in a responsible conversation, presumably nothing is stopping you, but imho you would need to rise above the sort of to-and-fro smears that characterise so much about US politics and talk dead straight. Nobody is above straight-talking, in my book.
This is a completely astounding conversation. We've clearly stated opinions at LGF that those folks would "hope," and no doubt enjoy, a nuclear attack on the east coast of their own country, while they also are riled about "support for terrorism"? Am I missing something in this senseless bilge?
And I would ask you, if they're so damned happy for a nuke to hit the east coast, why the hell did 9/11 get them so tweaked? The attack on the WTC was a dream come true, according to some of these clowns.
The argument that LGF does not deserve the reputation it has is entirely specious. It has its reputation for very well-deserved reasons and Kel is hardly the only one to have culled ugly hate smut from those troves. Charles Johnson's focus has always been highlighting Muslims behaving badly. LGF funnels every bad bit of news from around the world when Muslims are on the wrong side of it and even when they are not -- Gaza being a prime example. It should be no surprise that LGF'ers cheer for every atrocity delivered unto Muslims. The site is a focus for hate: hateful Muslims and those who relish hating the hateful Muslims. Fortunately for most of us, these people are still limited in number.
Black Americans know well that the kind of single-minded focus on the bad behaviour of members of a particular ethnic/racial groups leads to: racism and bigotry. News and entertainment in America has done much to paint the entire population of Black America as criminals and druggies. What kind of effect does that have? Just ask a black person.
But just like the news, the stories and the comments at LGF are generally devoid of any context, contemporaneous or otherwise. They have no perspective, they understand no history. Johnson has no idea as to why Ariel Sharon was called "The Butcher" by Israelis. Johnson and his ilk blame Muslims for violence and ills around the world, as though no one else is committing atrocities. Even when the US invades Iraq and kills untold numbers of civilians and when that debacle spirals out of control -- as many predicted -- LGF'ers now hold the position that its all the savage Arabs' fault. And no one should be the slightest surprised to see comments over there applauding every civilian bombing seen right now.
I strongly suspect that no one at LGF is the slightest aware of the report that came out of the University of Lancashire, commissioned by the Home Office. But, of course, while white people secretly like to believe they are superior, they will never admit it publicly, unless you're an avowed KKK member:
White youths are more likely to believe they are superior to those from other races, and their attitudes are more of a barrier to integration than those of Muslims, a study for the government has found.
This wouldn't be surprising because the report was buried by Blair's government (as was the BNP terrorist plot). That report revealed a number of fallacies and, as though we didn't need more proof, that it is whitie who is the most prone to racism and feelings of superiority. Furthermore,
1. The report found that nearly a third of non-Muslim pupils thought one race was superior, compared to a tenth of teenagers in a mainly Muslim school.
2. The survey found that 8% of pupils at school A and 12% in School C expressed an interest in finding out about other people’s religious beliefs, compared to 42% at the mainly Asian school. (school A was mainly white, school C white majority)
3. Dr Holden said: “The greater degree of racial tolerance in an overwhelming Asian/Muslim populated school again calls into question the common sense assumption that mixed schools represent more tolerant environments.”
A site like LGF fosters intolerance and does so with airs of pretense: the "real threat" as you will call it. But let me ask you, who the fuck has been killing whom in vastly greater numbers? This is classic Republican trope: control everything, blow people up at will, and still claim to be the victim when the inevitable reaction occurs.
Yuk thebhc,
What a cynical, muck-spreading post.
In any case I appreciate the link, thank you for that. There is truth in that many LGFers could take insights from it, but I doubt many will find it if they have to search through the kind of bile you encased it in.
I'm sure Charles Johnson is aware of how Sharon got the moniker.
You wrote: "The argument that LGF does not deserve the reputation it has is entirely specious."
I am the only one here to make that case. You might as well be direct.
Jez,
Firstly, as I stated at the beginning of my piece, I set out to find the reaction of the right to yesterday's election results.
That makes the contributions to the comments section at LGF highly relevant. I did not, however, ever claim that the views in the comments section were reflective of Charles Johnson's views. His "Gaza" comments were treated separately.
But the views in the comments section - whether endorsed by him or not - were certainly views coming from the right.
And I find your comments to Bhc - There is truth in that many LGFers could take insights from it, but I doubt many will find it if they have to search through the kind of bile you encased it in - to be almost laughable. From my admittedly limited reading of LGF, I would have thought their readers were well used to searching through bile.
The comments from Bhc were passionate and backed with a government report. You seem to have decided to engage with his manner of reporting the facts rather than to address any of the facts themselves.
Likewise, when you speak of "what this Ellison stands for".
As I said previously, your only charge against him so far is that he has a "past support of terrorism and attendance of extremist rallies".
Both of those claims are highly subjective. I asked you to provide evidence to back the claim and note that you have brought none. It is not enough to state that I am "reluctant" to believe that he is a supporter of terrorism, I asked you to provide me with proof that rose above hearsay.
This should not be difficult, especially as you claim to dislike: "the sort of to-and-fro smears that characterise so much about US politics."
Unless you provide proof, "to and fro smearing" is exactly what you are indulging in.
Can I also ask, when you state: "I would not bother with most of the moronic comments that litter the internet at large." Is this a device for explaining away only right wingers calling for things like the nuking of the East Coast or do you apply the same level of understanding to Muslim "moronic comments"?
I say this only because you asked that I, "spend some time discussing the matter on a popular Muslim forum". I wonder if all comments on this Muslim forum are treated with equal weight or if there are some that you dismiss/forgive as "moronic".
Picking a couple of comments from many thousands doesn't amount to "the reaction from the right". Anyway, you are part of this right-left divide that I abhor. That's all. I'm not smearing anyone. This is a small conversation and I'm saying, will people cut the crap and direct their remarks appropriately. I say that everywhere including LGF.
"From my admittedly limited reading of LGF, I would have thought their readers were well used to searching through bile." Well, that has no bearing on the point I would want Bhc as well as LGFers to take on board, that if you comment from a hostile perspective you can't expect to make an impact, and any good intentions are lost to the hostility.
"The comments from Bhc were passionate and backed with a government report." I acknowledged the report. I don't really accept that it backs up his general disdain for everyone at LGF. What I tried to put across is that people have passionate points of view that differ from yours, and a constructive dialogue is more effective than a slanging match.
My point about Ellison was backed up with a reference to a more recent post on LGF where Johnson defends his view. This issue of jihad and how it relates to the Muslim community at large is difficult and full of pitfalls. ftr wherever Muslim sympathies lie does not make them all "the enemy" but is a matter for concern. The jihad is not some imaginary Republican thing. At the same time I don't think the response has been constructive either. Certainly I am happy to acknowledge Bhc's link. The communications breakdown is global, and all I can suggest is that everyone quiets down, listens to each other, and establishes what are the options for peace. You cannot be on everybody's side though. Some people are truculent and if there is a war it draws in others including taking civilian lives. So I say, make sure the conversation is productive. If you're promoting peace promote peace, if you're strategising for war do so responsibly. This is just some random pov I guess, but at the very least you might note that LGFers commenting on one thing or another does not justify aligning it with fascism. Additionally there are people like me with family in conflict zones, and before you start second-guessing why people get emotional you might acknowledge that they are in the thick of it. I have two brothers and other family in Israel and they have all manner of political views, but they are more likely to find their voice on a forum discussing jihad than a forum discussing boycotts against Israel. That applies to me in any event.
""to and fro smearing" is exactly what you are indulging in." That is so cynical. I have nothing else to say about that. Take or reject the criticism is all.
Yes, I find a lot of Muslim comments to be moronic just as much as anyone's. If people are saying something powerful and reactionary I might just throw in my 2 cents, other times I let it lie. I made the suggestion because you would notice that the fears on LGF are not entirely unfounded and some people on all sides are just that determined to make the future a living hell. Some people on all sides have goodwill.
If you want to reduce this comment and my others to something partisan thenh go ahead, I will only conclude you are not able to listen, and you can think me arrogant.
Jez,
Now that you have told me that you have two family members living in Israel I understand why you might enjoy LGF so much as it probably reflects views that are very preferential to the side in the conflict that you support.
From Wikepedia:
Little Green Footballs has been criticized for anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bias.
For "promoting Israel and Zionism" and "presenting Israel's side of the conflict," LGF won the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" award from the Jerusalem Post in 2005. Gil Ronen, a reporter for Israel National News, has written:
If anyone ever compiles a list of Internet sites that contribute to Israel’s public relations effort, [Charles] Johnson's site will probably come in first, far above the Israeli Foreign Ministry's site.
That hardly rates him as unbiased I'm sure you will agree. However, as his bias corrolates with your own I'm sure you agree with much of what he says, just as I find a lot I agree with on the Electronic Intifada. I do not pretend that only one of us has biases, I would presume we both have biases that are almost polar opposites.
Now to your points:
Picking a couple of comments from many thousands doesn't amount to "the reaction from the right".
Yes, it does. I never claimed that this was part of some kind of representative poll, I made it very clear that I was picking the comments of some posters from LGF and using it as an example of what was being said on right wing blogs.
Anyway, you are part of this right-left divide that I abhor.
Jez, are you being serious when you say this? You read LGF for God's sake. It's one of the most right wing sites there is. And you find this man's views to be reasonable.
Again from LGF:
Johnson has stated many times that he is disgusted with media coverage of the death of ISM activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed in Rafah, a town in the Gaza Strip. Johnson disputes the ISM's account, pointing out that that Corrie voluntarily placed herself in front of the bulldozer "while trying to 'protect' a house used for drugs and weapons smuggling".
I know you may be a passionate supporter of Israel and perhaps that's why you find this man so reasonable, but that's a fairly extreme position he's holding there. In any civilised society protest is a civil right and government's make allowance for that. He is implying that by choosing to protest in the way that she did - a form of protest that is reasonably common in the Occupied Territories that she is somehow responsible for her own death. Why else would he emphasise that she "voluntarily placed herself in front of the bulldozer" if not to put the blame on to the dead protestor?
My point about Ellison was backed up with a reference to a more recent post on LGF where Johnson defends his view.
Perhaps this conversation would have more relevence if you directed me to some link to this defence of his comments.
You comment from a hostile perspective you can't expect to make an impact, and any good intentions are lost to the hostility.
I'm afraid the very popularity of LGF defeats your point. He posts constantly from a very hostile anti-Arab pro-Israeli perspective and his readership is bloody huge.
Don't you think you might find him reasonable because his prejudices match your own? You are obviously a passionate supporter of Israel, so you won't find his defaming the dead Rachel Corrie to be shocking. It is certainly in questionable taste.
If you want to reduce this comment and my others to something partisan then go ahead, I will only conclude you are not able to listen, and you can think me arrogant.
I hope you will find that I am listening very well. I think you are probably no more partisan than I am. We all read things that confirm our own beliefs, we do so by our very choice of newspaper.
And I never aligned LGF with fascism.
And I don't underestimate the fears expressed regarding muslim terrorism, I simply totally disagree with the way the west is seeking to deal with this.
I'm afraid the issue that most incites the Arab world to hatred and anger is the Israeli/Palestine dispute.
A resolution of that dispute would do more to reduce the threat of global terrorism than anything else. And that sentiment is Tony Blair's as well as my own.
My solution to that conflict would be forcing both sides to abide to resolution 242 and all other relevant resolutions.
Bloody hell you are a cynic. "My side" in the ME conflict is the side of coming to an amicable agreement and doing my level best to understand what is in the way. I also understand anyone, Israeli, Arab, Iranian or whatever, who resorts to arms if a threat is looming, but I believe that there has to be a diplomatic track to find an agreement. No doubt I am sympathetic to the Israeli narrative but I am also sympathetic to the Palestinian narratove. Can you understand that? Can you believe it?
I have told you some of what I stand for. All your prejudice against me as a visitor to LGF and someone with family in Israel is nothing but distrust and doesn't reflect reality. On LGF I am no different in my approach than I am with you.
You talk of "forcing both sides". That sounds asinine and lacks a method. How about "appealing to both sides", and if you have more detailed suggestions please do fill me in.
Yes, I am serious when I say I abhor the right-left divide. Don't be a jerk in the face of honest conviction.
I apologise for thinking that you had ascribed the term fascism to LGF. Your word was extremist and I accept there is a difference.
Rachel Corrie did sit in front of a bulldozer. I'm not qualified to say whether the driver saw her but I have just enough faith in humanity to put the whole thing down to tragedy. It has been pretty well investigated. I do think that as well as legitimate outrage Israel is the subject of smears, and speculation surrounding the killing of Rachel Corrie is used heavily against Israel, but as I say numerous parties in the political sphere play that game. It is hardly the way top bridging divides. I don't find Johnson's position on Corrie extreme. Nor do I claim he shares my views.
At the time when I referenced the article it was at or near the top of the page. Here is a link http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23273_CAIRs_Congressman&only
You are insisting that you know what I stand for and that it is other than I have stated. Come off it. If you are interested in my point of view you can ask. If you like you can e-mail me, because for me this is not the best format for following up as well as attending to daily priorities.
It is true that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute would be a major breakthrough for world-peace although it is far from the only thing. One thing that incites the Arab world, as you put it, is plain old cynicism. Same goes on the Israeli side. I doubt you mean to help matters but by all means we can discuss that.
It is a shame you will not take my point about applying some simple neutral values to politics in general and not presuming to have all the answers. That is the essence of hostile partisanship and makes it pretty difficult to have a progressive conversation.
Unless you are some kind of special diplomat neither of us knows exactly what goes on at the top all the time, and we can only work from media, hearsay and experience. To make that at all useful we would do well to pool that experience and avoid so arrogantly blocking our ears. And no, I do not feel you are listening. Not with goodwill in mind in any event. Rather you continue to project that I am partisan. I would rather there were no enmity in the air to be partisan about.
I will readily admit that I have made assumptions based on the fact that you visit and defend LGF. If I have categorised you wrongly, I apologise.
"Appealing to both sides" as you put it tends to ignore the fact that the Israelis are the far superior power and have effectively been avoiding any form of negotiations for several years now, and they have been doing so with American connivance. That is why I use the term "force". Israel's refusal to negotiate whilst settlement building continues is a position that suits the Israelis. And, unless the US use the leverage they have, I see no reason for the Israelis to stop whilst they have the upper hand.
I also think the Bush administration has allowed the Israelis six years of free rein and the end result has not been beneficial, in terms of peace, to either the Israelis or the Palestinians. They are the only people who can - yes, force - the Israelis to enter into negotiations. "Appealing to them" has got us nowhere.
And I did look at the article and must admit I found it to be very light on fact and high on assumption. It claimed that Ellison "had ties" with CAIR. I'm afraid I don't agree that someone being supported by an organisation - especially a Muslim organisation whilst that person seeks to become the first ever US Muslim Senator - can be taken as proof that the Senator supports terrorism. Nor can it, IMO, be used to justify the sort of comments that I highlighted: has he blown himself up in the house yet, etc.
So, in the spirit that you are not a partisan I ask: What solution do you support for the Israeli/Palestine dispute?
Fair comment. I can concede the point that criticism of Ellison may be weak. My experience is that the majority of politically active Muslims have no qualms about rejecting solutions to the Israeli-Arab stand-off on grounds of pride and what they consider to be the illegitimacy of Israel. Maybe Ellison is actually against terrorism in Israel and elsewhere. If you have any information suggesting he will work for peace I will be interested. I do not intend to back an assertion that he is pro-terrorism if it is demonstrably false.
No, I don't have a solution. I can describe the components. The two sides will have to negotiate on borders. Other states in the Middle East will have to swear off attacking Israel. They will have to reform their madrassahs to stop inculcating hatred. There can be no forcing Israel not to hunt down bombers. Israel will have to use its military with precision and care until both sides unambiguously swear off attacking one another. Ideally they will pledge on areas of cooperation. This is not looking realistic. On the Israeli side there are a few nuts but essentially the government and the army have control and are accountable for Israel keeping its agreements. There is no such single accountability for all the jihadi groups and Muslim states. Israel cannot be expected to negotiate on the matter more than once so it will require a group effort. All-out war cannot be on the cards. This can only occur in the event of an overwhelming cassus belli. These are ideas to which all parties will have to subscribe. There can be no forcing them.
In the meantime unless the present enemies of Israel form such a single accountability, military actioon is inevitable and loss of innocent life is seemingly hard to avoid.
It behoves anyone commenting on the issues not to villify Israel. Israel's enemies are often dogmatic and deermined and supporting plans to weaken Israel's defense is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable for Israel to shrug off loss of life. If their mistakes are avoidable Israel must build into its strategies a way of minimising civilian casualties.
I believe this view is well understood and supported in Israel but not unanimous. The objection is that Israel's enemies are determined and victory will be the only answer. Probably you and I would agree that objection is usustainable and unfair to the civilian majority.
I also believe that much cynicism against Israel is the work of propagandists. Israel is not short of a peacenik camp. Its powerful military is bound to make grave and fatal mistakes. This has to be considered when making criticisms.
Do you have any other ideas?
Yes,
The Saudis offered a peace deal in which all Arab states would recognise and sign peace deals with Israel if Israel would abide by Res 242.
I think we end up putting the cart before the horse sometimes. Hatred of Israel is fuelled by the plight of the Palestinians. If the Palestinians were allowed to have their own state free from Israeli interference it would be much harder for the hardliners to continue their campaigns, as without the plight of the Palestinians they would lose most of their legitimacy.
As you rightly say, this will only be sorted by negotiating borders but a huge obstacle appears to be Israel's determination to hold on to illegal settlements built despite numerous resolutions demanding that the building of them be stopped and stating that the passage of time would not change their illegality. In this way, Israel has created a rod for her own back.
However, I'm sure that there must be some land in Israel of equal size that could be traded in order to overcome this anomaly.
But what there must be is negotiation.
And finally on the subject of Mr Ellison you say:
I do not intend to back an assertion that he is pro-terrorism if it is demonstrably false.
I do not feel I, or others, need to prove that these flimsy ties are demonstrably false - that's not how assigning guilt or innocence works - it would be for those making the allegations to prove that they are demonstrably true. At the moment LGF seem to be condemning him for "ties" to CAIR. As representatives of CAIR have been invited to the White House I could make the counter claim that the President of the USA "has ties" to Muslim terrorists, but it wouldn't be a sustainable argument. And neither is the argument of LGF.
I'll be back here after the weekend. Thank you for this conversation.
Have a nice weekend Bud.
Post a Comment