Blogcritics Comments on Mutual Admiration

Comment by Ashish INDIA

Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:01:45 EDT

WHO IS THE ENEMY OF MY COUNTRY, HE IS MY ENEMY... I HATE ALL KIND OF VOILENCES B-COZ I HAVE LOST ENOUGH. WE DON'T GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY TO OFFENCE. BUT THEN WHAT WE CAN DO IF SOMEONE ATTACKS ON US. WE GIVE THEM A ENOUGH ANSWER. WE HAD SHOWED THIS 4 TIMES 1962,65,71 & 1999.

Comment by Ashish

Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:51:49 EDT

u all r sick

Comment by Mac Diva

Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:29:36 EST

Just a quick note to say I've included this entry in my Blogospherics
column at Mac-a-ro-nies.

I would have sent an email, but couldn't find an address.

Comment by Corinna Hasofferett

Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:45:35 EDT

L. Coffey, it was F.T. Marinetti, in the Manifesto of Futurism: "We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman." It's not Satire, TDavid, nor meant to be.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:32:01 EDT

A few things: I agree with Augustine about Natalie's expression of pacifism, and I do very much consider her a friend. There is a fine line between criticism of the tenets of a religion, a broad generalization about the people of that religion, the interpolation of broad generalizations about the people of a religion to assumptions about individuals within that group, and racism. I don't characterizations of religion as necessarily racism, though I decry any assumptions made about individuals based upon their belonging - in this case - to Islam. I do not think Charles - whom I like very much and consider a friend - is racist or even "religionist" (if there is such a word), and I understand how the tone of his site came to be: he reacted to the glib statements about Islam not being the issue or the problem, and of it being a "religion of peace" (per Bush) in the immediate wake of 9/11. He called bullshit on this assumption and I agree with him that Islam as practiced today by millions of adherents IS EXACTLY part of the problem, and that there are significant differences in the GENUINE Islamic doctrine (which I have studied in some great detail since 9/11) vs that of Christianity, to which it is most closely compared: Jesus was a defiantly non-political figure, Mohammed was a political leader and a warrior - this is not insignificant. But I also see that Charles's many readers have extended a general contempt for Islam and Islamic people far beyond what Charles himself has done and this is a legitimate area of concern as well. The tone is often that of unmitigated loathing of things Islamic in the comments section. I am not sure what the answer is because I do not encourage Charles to censor his comments section any more than I want to have to censor Blogcritics, but I do share the concerns of those who see the general tone of his readers, as expressed in the LGF comments section, as reflecting anti-Islamic bigotry. This may be the moral equivalent of racism, but it is not the same thing as racism, and I reiterate, there is much to legitimately excoriate about Islamic culture. I will not back down from that assessment, nor apologize for it.

Comment by TDavid

Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:47:23 EDT

Good and bad satire both have something in common.

Comment by L Coffey

Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:12:19 EDT

War is the Sole Hygiene of the World...... Fillipo Tomaso Marientti

Comment by Mac Diva

Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:46:13 EDT

LGF was one of the first blogs I just completely gave up on. The hatred for Arabs and/or Muslims that dominated the site when I read it months ago was just too painful to expose myself to. I'm neither, but to see folks hating an entire population of people resonates for me anyway.

Comment by mike

Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:05:58 EDT

30+ comments from the racist loons at littlegreenfootballs.com (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8611_Whats_Up_E) is a true compliment. Bullseye, you fuckers. Direct hit.

Comment by Augustine

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:31:54 EDT

I've arrived late at this long procession of comments but followed it attentively and I just want to add, for Natalie Davis: Thank you for the most coherent, heartfelt, sincere and all-embracing defense of the pacifist/non-violent position that I have ever read (and that's quite a lot). I wholly share your view but bow humbly to your far greater personal committment to it. It would be a privilege to be your friend.

Comment by Particleman

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:45:22 EDT

In response to: "C- at Brown University creative writing class. Go read Chomsky and listen to Saves the Day, you nonentity." Dude, Saves The Day...? Cheesy emo rock if you ask me. They're so 2002.

Comment by Corinna Hasofferett

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:19:48 EDT

Well, I assume by now everybody has left the class, so I can speak my mind silently and no one will cry, "Fire!" Ok, but what do I think? The problem is, I will know it only when I hear it with my own ears, so whispering won't do. I'm ready! No one is here so what am I to be afraid of? So, Corinna, you seem to imagine you're talking to the wall. Oh, may I digress? Of course, get it into your head, no one is listening. So here is the digression: Someone, (was it Bush? Bin Laden? Peres? Martin Luther King? Jesus? Moses. No, not Moses, he saw the place only from the top of that mountain). Anyway S/HE came to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem the Holiest, and asked the host, "What are all those people doing here?" "They're praying. You may pray as well. Say your wish." "God," sad S/HE, "please grant the people much health." A booming voice thundered: "Granted!" "God, oh God, Please kindly grant the people riches and happiness." "Granted." "God allmighty, do grant the people peace and no more wars, please do!" Silence. Then came the final answer: "DON'T YOU SEE YOU'RE TALKING TO THE WALL?!" So, who were you people been talking to before you retired to look into your refrigerators? Oh, another digression. Hear this story: (Corinna! It's turning into a post this semi-comment). (So what. No one is listening, why not have some fun). It's past midnight in Tel Aviv... (Oh, forgot the story, you sidetracked me, C.) Here in the dark, I'm whistling. If I lose hope... Oh, now I remember: A few years ago I was on a train heading from Hamburg to Amsterdam. Two young couples were with me in the cabin, sitting opposite each other and leading a lively happy conversation. "What language are you speaking?" "Oh," they tell me, "we talk Dutch and they talk German, but we understand each other perfectly well." I remembered so well that such a conversation couldn't even have been imagined fifty something years ago. I hold on to this memory and many similar others. Here in the darkness, if we lose hold of this ray of hope, evasive as it might seem nowadays, then what future an I entering? There are two major issues: 1. What is the present reality? Grim, for sure, we all agree. 2. Is it a constant? Here the opinions and attitudes differ. If I'll get to consider it a constant, as some "realists" claim, then there is no choice but live as the Stone Age people. Whenever I talk to Anissah Darwish, the Palestinian poetess in Ramallah (and one of the participants in my book of conversations with international women writers on Childhood in times of upheaval, Once She Was a Child), she says, "Yah Corinna, I wish you knew Arabic and understood my words." "I can feel them." And she says, "Yes, I know you can and do."

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:03:22 EDT

"Tell that to the Russians, Hal." Reminds me of the old joke about the drunk searching around under a lamp post on his hands and knees. A passerby asks him what he's doing. The drunk says: "I dropped my keys in the parking lot." Passerby: "So why are you looking for them over here?" Drunk: "The light's better."

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:58:56 EDT

Oops, typo: that's Elliott Abrams: In 1991, he pled guilty to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about activities wit the Nicaraguan contras. President Bush (Senior) pardoned him in 1992. See the "Final report of the independent counsel for Iran/Contra matters." He's now in the White House under another Bush, hand-picked by Condoleeza Rice for the post of director of Middle Eastern affairs (National Security Council Middle East and North Africa portfolio).

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:56:57 EDT

Tell that to the Russians, Hal.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:52:42 EDT

"I agree that strategic concerns, for example the harshness of the terrain in Afghanistan..." Nice slide, but you're out :-) Rumsfeld was ready to go to war against Iraq at least as early as 1998, as evidenced in the letter to the president he signed: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm Note that other signatiories include Richard Perle, Elliott Abrans, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Doug Feith and Zalmay Khalilzad, all of whom are part of the Administration, or in a position to "influence" both policy and action. It would be disingenuous to blame Afghanistan's terrain for the invasion of Iraq.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:29:18 EDT

Hal, I agree that strategic concerns, for example the harshness of the terrain in Afghanistan and the U.S. alliance with Pakistan despite what is likely the opposition of a majority of Pakistanis, partly explains why Iraq was chosen as a target. But, let's not underestimate the elder Bush's rancor with being played a fool by Saddam, greed for Iraq's assets and the relative ease of invading Iraq as explanations, too.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:03:20 EDT

"I understand the desire to "explain it all," but I think reality is both more complicated and simpler than most conspiracy theorists believe." To give reality a head start, here are a few citations from Bob Woodward's "Bush At War". He's hardly a conspiracy theorist, and in the real world, some things can be explained: p. 49: [this occurs on the day after 9/11/01] "Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? ... Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately." p. 60: [9/13/01] "Rumsfeld had raised Iraq during the previous day's national security meetings with the president. Now Wolfowitz wanted to issue a public warning to terrorist states. It was another effort to prod the president to include Iraq in his first round of targets." p. 84: [[9/15/01] "Wolfowitz expanded on his arguments about how war against Iraq would be easier than against Afghanistan... " When the group reconvened, Rumsfeld asked, Is this the time to attack Iraq?" On the other hand, Colin Powell was against attacking Iraq (as were Cheney, Tenet and Card). It's a book worth reading, whatever your perception of reality.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:36:11 EDT

"The Lizard Puppet-Master" - I like that, combining the concepts of cold-blooded efficiency and unseen manipulation. Who's writing the screenplay?

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:08:17 EDT

I always thought Karl Rove needed a moisturizer.

Comment by JR

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:56:29 EDT

Lizards are behind it all.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:20:11 EDT

Eric: "I think reality is both more complicated and simpler than most conspiracy theorists believe." Yep. And way more dangerous and insidious.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:45:07 EDT

Sounds like an ad for The Matrix Politicized. Who's behind it all, the Elders of Zion? The Masons? The Saudis? I understand the desire to "explain it all," but I think reality is both more complicated and simpler than most conspiracy theorists believe.

Comment by Albatross

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:39:10 EDT

Osama bin laden is a phony. Bush is a phony. Colin Powell and his buds have been behind this war and desert storm. Bush is the poster boy. Bin laden is the poster boy. but who's behind him i can't tell. It's what is underneath the carpet. can't you tell. the world is a sham. can't you tell. open your eyes. there's a cloak over everyone's face. and it's bigger than anyone imagined. it's a bombshell can;t you tell. hehehhehe.

Comment by mike

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:59:46 EDT

Well, thank you very much, Mac, for your kind words.