Opposing radical Islam doesn't mean you're a Nazi. This post, besides being an immediate invocation of Godwin's law, was a remarkably cheap and tawdry shot.

It's sad that you reserve your scorn for Charles, instead of those whose outrageous behavior he documents on a daily basis.

...like these guys, just to take the latest post on LGF as an example.

It would be a cheap shot, GB, except for this. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Ah, the old (and tired) trick of offering up comments by other people as proof of the blogger's own views.

Better watch out, or I may leave some reich-a-riffic posts on your blog and make you a Nazi by association.

Feel free. Of course, I only delete comment spam, where LGF spends an inordinate amount of time deleting dissenting comments and banning commenters. So yes, I hold him (and his assistants) absolutely responsible for the comments on his site, because he so actively polices them. When you delete 'most everything you disagree with, it's fair game to judge what you leave.

If you saw some of the stuff Charles gets, you would understand why he deletes it. Stuff threatening him personally with harm, or the old "DIE EVIL JEW BASATARD!!!!!!!!!" school of political argument. (Ironically, he isn't even Jewish)

I've been reading LGF for several years, and I can't remember ever seing a commenter banned simply for expressing a dissenting view. Expressing a dissenting view in foul language combined with ethnic slurs and violent threats (and it's funny how often those things go together), sure.

I would also say there is a difference between people who say harsh, sometimes extreme things about fundamentalist Islamic culture because of the terrorism it continues to spread around the world, and the Nazis, who rounded up and killed Jews because... they were Jews.

I would also say there is a difference between people who say harsh, sometimes extreme things about fundamentalist Islamic culture because of the terrorism it continues to spread around the world, and the Nazis, who rounded up and killed Jews because... they were Jews.

The Nazis believed, or claimed to believe, more or less the same things about Jews that righties say about Muslims. Not suicide bombings, but that whole "plotting to take over the world thing"? Yeah, I think you see where I'm heading with this. So spare me your whining about criticism of hardcore wingnuts like Johnson and their hateful rhetoric, which, I'm afraid to say, goes far beyond mere anti-terrorist sentiment. You know that as well as I do.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion: fake

9-11 attacks: real

Speeches by imams calling for death of Jews and destruction of America: real

I think you see where I'm heading with this.

Charles doesn't hate Muslim people simply because they're Muslims. To the contrary, he has praised Muslims who speak out against the destructive, death-loving ideologies, people, and actions that are unfortunately tarnishing the reputation of Islam.

As an example, here's a post by Charles prasing Free Muslims Against Terrorism, a group of Muslims who, as the name suggests, denounce terrorism and the radical Wahhabi strain of Islam.

Here's another similar post.

And here's a post from the current front page of LGF, expressing approval of a favorable NYT profile of Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She was born a Muslim in Somalia. But she criticizes many aspects of Islam, and is no longer a practicing Muslim. For this, under some interpretations of Sharia, she deserves death, and she is in fact receiving death threats.

Again, Charles doesn't hate Muslim people simply because they're Muslims. He hates an ideology that, among other things, encourages its believers to kill people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I think he's right. Do you agree, or do you think Ali should be killed for renouncing Islam?

And where are the posts in which Charles demands Nazi-style actions be taken against all Muslims on the basis of their religion? Email me a link if you find one.

http://www.grotto11.com/blog/archive/1111547389.shtml

Yeah, what he said.