I’m delighted with my twice yearly link at Little Green Footballs. Thanks, Charles for boosting my site traffic three or four times. And I do so delight in rankling him so much he feels he must do battle with me. But that’s not of course why I attack him or his site. It’s for the lies and hate that he spreads like manure all over his share of the blogosphere.
I wrote here last night about threatening comments directed at Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR that were published at LGF. Charles got into high moral dudgeon in a post written today and devoted to your fellow “moonbat” (I do so love those tender terms of endearment Charles) because I wrote yesterday that he received two visits from the FBI when instead they were two phone calls. That’s what passes for rhetorical argument and refutation over there, I guess.
Anyway, Charles passes off the phone calls and the actual messages as much ado about nothing:
The facts: one reader posted one comment that could be interpreted as a threat against Mr. Hooper in particular (not against “Muslims”), and this comment was deleted soon after it was posted. The FBI contacted me months after the comment had been deleted, at the urging of CAIR. The FBI also contacted me (again on CAIR’s urging) about harassing emails sent with our “email this article” feature — and again these emails were sent directly to Mr. Hooper in particular, not to “Muslims.” Both of these incidents were handled promptly and with integrity on our side.
This reminds me of our beloved president’s rhetoric: “trust me that I acted promptly and with integrity but I can’t possibly share with you anything that would allow you to make a serious judgment of my actions.” How can we be the judge of Johnson’s actions when he refuses to let anyone see the actual comments or e mails? It’s certainly his privilege to sit on them. But he shouldn’t expect anyone other than a dyed in the wool rabid LGFer to trust his word.
I’ll ease the suspense somewhat by revealing at least one of the threatening comments which one of my readers has found through an internet search. The following is part of an e mail sent to CAIR and Johnson on July 29, 2005:
On the site, www.littlegreenfootballs.com, a commenter made the following statement:
“When is someone goimg [sic] to finally walk up to Ibrahim Hooper and put a bullet in his brain?”
A commenter at LGF Watch also documents the comment. The full e mail is quoted at LGF Watch. A cursory check of LGF’s recent comment threads shows the would-be assassin, Rayra, is still a member in good standing of the LGF “community.” Why have you not banned him, Charles? Or is threatening to assassinate a Muslim-American leader not sufficient grounds for banning? Well, OK since Charles loves to engage in pilpul (look that one up in your Jewish dictionary, Charles), Rayra didn’t say HE would kill Ibrahim Hooper, he just expressed a wish someone ELSE would do the job for him. So that would make him an instigator of the crime but not the perpetrator. Someone who would rejoice at the crime, but who could not claim to be its author. Just to be clear so the LGF hellions don’t come screaming hysterically at me for my “lies.” Oh that’s right, it doesn’t matter what I write. It’s all lies as long as it criticizes the fearless leader.
Regarding the Herbert Sobel comment which I featured here in last night’s post (always worth repeating: “Goat-fucking koranimals. Unlike my last war, this war, I may have to consider collecting a necklace of ears. /loading more magazines/gotta finish post-FTX refit and weapons check.”), Charles notes correctly that he deleted the comment:
To illustrate the “hate speech” at LGF, Silverstein also quotes another reader’s comment—that was deleted almost immediately after being posted.
But he doesn’t answer why he didn’t ban the commenter (something I do here from time to time and certainly would’ve done with a comment of that “quality”). Why didn’t you Charles? Or do you find it easier to excuse homicidal mania from your own readers than excusing the same emotion among Muslims?
The following statement from Charles about the FBI’s investigation of threats against Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR tells you all you need to know about the former’s insular and self-protected bubble when it comes to hate from his minions:
They [the FBI] were not “investigating anti-Muslim speech,” they were asking about two specific incidents that involved specific threats against one specific person—Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR.
So you see, in LGF World if you threaten the leader of one of the nation’s leading Muslim-American organizations you’re not engaging in “anti-Muslim speech.” You hate the guy because he wears red socks and red socks really, really tick you off.
Charles tries to issue himself a clean bill of health from the FBI by quoting this alleged statement from the agent who questioned him:
I’m sure this will come as a disappointment to Mr. Silverstein, but one agent specifically told me they were not in the business of policing free speech.
I’m not surprised they told him that. But the fact is that the FBI was concerned enough about the comments to call Johnson himself. And Charles, if you don’t know the difference between “free speech” and “hate speech” that advocates harming other human beings then perhaps you should have someone with a little more background on these issues moderate your comments for you. It might improve the “quality” of the discussion AND avoid future FBI telephone calls.
Further, Johnson contends:
I have fully explained the situation, contrary to Silverstein’s ignorant assertion.
No, revealing the contents of the threats would be a “full” explanation. Anything short of that would be a partial explanation at least where I come from.