Little Green Footballs

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Hypocrisy personified

This quote by Charles 'Eagle Eye' Johnson is quite something....

"The vast, vast majority of Muslims want to get along and live a comfortable life just like everyone else," he says. "But the mainstream media shies away from showing the public the real face of Islamic extremism. They don't want to offend. And they are influenced by some strong advocacy groups that are funded by Middle Eastern countries, which are actively engaging with the mainstream media to promote a point of view."
Now let's change that a tad....
"The vast, vast majority of Jews want to get along and live a comfortable life just like everyone else," he says. "But the mainstream media shies away from showing the public the real face of political Zionism. They don't want to offend. And they are influenced by some strong advocacy groups that are funded by a Middle Eastern country, which is actively engaging with the mainstream media to promote a point of view."
If Glenn Greenwald, Markos Moulitsas, Robert Fisk, Juan Cole or Justin Raimondo had said that Charles would be busily hammering out a post about how anti-Semitic they were.

8 comments:

Ricardus said...

I beg to differ with your analogy. Swapping names doesn't work here.

Let me illustrate.

CJ says: The vast, vast majority of Muslims want to get along and live a comfortable life just like everyone else.

That's true. Nothing bigoted or inflammatory there.

You say: The vast, vast majority of Jews want to get along and live a comfortable life just like everyone else.

Well, that's also true. Nothing controversial or racist so far.

Then CJ says: But the mainstream media shies away from showing the public the real face of Islamic extremism. They don't want to offend.

Demonstrably true. Start with the Cartoons of Blasphemy cause celebre and go from there.

You suggest: But the mainstream media shies away from showing the public the real face of political Zionism. They don't want to offend.

"Zionists" have not called on their followers to bring all the world under submission to the Torah. The media don't don kid gloves when discussing Israeli hardliners and have never withheld criticism of Israel for fear of sparking Jewish riots.

MJ said...

Jeez, that's not the point and you know it. The point of the piece was that if 'a known writer' eg Justin Raimondo or Juan Cole used similar language to be critical of Zionism (which let's be fair is far from perfect to say the least) Charles Johnson's head would be exploding with accusations of anti-Semitism.

The media don't don kid gloves when discussing Israeli hardlinersRubbish. Plain and simple.

skip sievert said...

I guess I get the gist of this site now sort of. It is all set up to answer one reactionary comment with another. One intellectual pissing contest with another. It all revolves around politics and religion. Two dead ends as far as going to a better future for humans.
One inane point as to some dead end aspect is kicked around and defended.
Religious themes that are arbitrary and mostly nonsensical are defended and trumpeted.
A lot of the points being made and counter made in this original post are pet theories , or pet peeves, concerning a variety of these political/belief systems.
Why is racism ground out over and over again here.? Judaism has nothing to do with race. Its a belief system.
Same with Islam.-
This is a very odd place, with a very strange slant to the commentary and posts.
It is hard to see what the point is here, or if a certain direction is trying to be got at even.

Ricardus said...

MJ:

Let me try putting it another way. You can't analyze a statement like this simply by changing words like clothes on a paper doll. The language isn't what matters. What matters is the content.

If what Charles says is true, then how the statement sounds when you substitute Jews for Muslims is irrelevant.

If the rewritten statement is false, then Charles would be in the right to criticize it -- even if the language has a formal similarity to (true) statements which he has made.

Anyway, it is a weak debating strategy to argue from hypotheticals by speculating what you think your opponent "would do" in a situation of your own creating.

Far better would be for this blogger to explain why he/she thinks Charles is wrong in his statement about Islamic extremists and the media.

MJ said...

Let me try putting it another way. You can't analyze a statement like this simply by changing words like clothes on a paper doll. The language isn't what matters. What matters is the content.

Read LGF,then you'll find out that language matters very much. Any criticism of Israel or Zionism is instantly branded as anti-Semitic. On the other hand Charles feels it acceptable to offer criticism of the same nature aimed at Islam as a whole, not just Islamic extremism. If his true crusade was against extremism then posts about Caribou coffee, the port scandal, the religion of the head of AI and repeated attacks on the Daily Kos for alleged anti-Semitism would be out of place, no?

Frustrated Liberal said...

I came hear to check this site out. I am frustrated as a liberal who is frustrated by Bush, GOP, Iraq war, but am now frustrated to find out that I must also hate Israel. Am I no longer a Democrat?

Look, I've been following the news in the Mideast with a magnifying glass for over 30 years. In that time, I've learned not to trust the Arab media except, to trust Haaretz.com, to expect wrongs on both sides, and to hope for peace in the long term. Although wrong are on both sides, if you know the history, you will know that Israel has done less wrong because it's end goal is not destruction but peace. You've seen this in offers and acceptances of peace at the slightest chance (Egypt, Jordan, and Rabin/Arafat).

You actually prove my point with the presentation of the news story about the mother that died. The story aired on Israeli tv! Never would've happened in the Arab world. LGF exposes what I know to expect, but, unfortunately for me, it's mixed up with a bunch of other right-wing junk. On most of the hunches, LGF ended up being right. AP admitted to photoshopping, Green helmet guy was caught red-handed, Qana was 28 dead not 57, the PM admitted to crying over 1 death not 40. Yes, all deaths are tragic, but propoganda is a big part of this, and that is why my Lebanese and Palestinian friends trust Haaretz over their own papers. If you know some people from the region, ask them.

Well, I'm done with my rant. Again, when did hating Israel become part of the Liberal agenda? I am absolutely about showing the bad parts of both sides in the Middle East, but your articles actually haven't shown much (at least what I saw on the front page today). Should I look for some Independent candidates now? WTF happened to DailyKos and other liberal blogs? I give up.

Frustrated Liberal said...

Oh, and btw, I have lived in the following areas for months each: Israel, Palestinian territories, Jordan, and Lebanon.

dawud al-gharib said...

Why is every criticism of Israel taken as 'want to destroy Israel' - when I'm not supposed to assume the same of critics of the Arab regimes want to 'slaughter Arabs' (against the evidence of the bombing of Beirut and Lebanese villages).

Look, I loathe terrorists but explain why HezboLlah and Hamas believe they're acting in the same essential self-preservation (of nation and self-determination, if not of individual lives) as Israel. That makes me a 'terrorist-lover' by LGF's judgement. When I assert that Israelis and American civilians have the right to peace and security as well, I get assaulted as 'supporter of the kafirs' by extremist arab/ muslims.

I don't care what y'all think anymore, I'm just concerned with my own moral and ethical credibility from here on out.

LGF racists can go to hell, along with the real supporters of terrorism [state or 'NGO'], everywhere.