digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Digg Islamist Calling to Exclude LGF

littlegreenfootballs.com — Here ’s another call to block Little Green Footballs from Digg.com, this time apparently from an Islamist: Digg - Stop Digg’s Abuse! – An Open Letter...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • luksy, on 10/14/2007, -46/+5Yes and we care because.....?
    • mcfairy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Nice to see someone actually admit it.
    • 1389, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23@luksy,

      You don't care, because you're too selfish to give any thought to other people's rights to speak and be heard. If somebody shut YOU up, you'd be the first to howl.

      The real reason that you and others on the Digg bury squad is reflexively censoring everything from LGF is because you are afraid that they might see something that will upset your entire world view.

      Just for starters, the possibility that one must let go of one's current way of thinking, and re-think everything through from a completely different perspective, is too frightening for many people to consider. Not to mention the fact that they'd have to admit to themselves and others that they had been wrong about many things! What would their friends and family say?
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Yea.. the evil collective of muslim commie liberal terrorist nazi clinton hitlers are "censoring" the "pure and wonderfull news sources" like LGF, stormfront.org, and godhatesfags.com. Those poor neofascist cultists that don't even get to spread their hate rhetoric about lynching muslims on the street.. /tear..
    • sparks2, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5This explains why that story got infested with *****.

      Buried.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Ummm.... why the hell are there 12 stories from LGF on JUST THE FIRST PAGE of upcoming stories???
    • Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@jivatmanx - They have all disappeared.. it's a conspiracy!
    • get2djnow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What's been dugg by this a-hole?

      http://digg.com/users/luksy/news/dugg
  • Nite01007, on 10/14/2007, -14/+72The mantra of the New Left:

    I disagree with what you say, so I will fight to the death to prevent anyone from hearing you
    • Ultramontane, on 10/12/2007, -12/+41Haha, nice. But sadly true...
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18But the big picture: our moral relativism means there is no right and wrong. And our point — no matter how ridiculous — is the only point that matters because we say so.
    • liquidflorain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4indeed, Voltaire truly is dead....
  • shatterglass, on 10/12/2007, -22/+13Like Roger Ebert said in his review of Oscar-winner An Inconvenient Truth: "I believe that to be 'impartial' and 'balanced' ...means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended."

    We're just striving for an impartial, balanced Digg. Ahem.
  • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -58/+9Don’t care what the “Islamists” want. I want you out because you’re a spammer.
    • mcfairy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+39How is it spam? LGF isn't selling anything, only pointing out true articles that people don't seem to get to see.
      I joined digg to get my point across TOO~ why are you the only one allowed to do that?
    • luksy, on 10/12/2007, -35/+6No of course not, LGF doesn't have any adverts at all on its page, like, amazon maybe...
    • SiRBov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What, exactly, constitutes "spam" to you? From the look and sound of things it's simply anybody who doesn't agree with your world view.
  • paulathome, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38When I put my hands over my ears and shout loudly I can't hear you and therefore you aren't there. Great philosophy for living an 'unexamined' life

    somewhere dogs are barking....
  • odinsvalkyrie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56Islamic terrorism is the ultimate inconvenient truth. I wish it were not so.
  • ladycatnip, on 10/12/2007, -7/+47"There is no other view that can be defended"...Typical of leftist morons. They skipped all their debate and logic classes in high school/college to go smoke weed; they can't defend their OWN positions so therefore resort to squashing the viewpoints of their opponents. The only free speech they support is their own.

    .
  • SeafoodGumbo, on 10/14/2007, -12/+39Simple true/false questions for diggers:

    DID THE PROPHET MUHAMMED HAVE PENETRATIVE SEX WITH A NINE YEAR-OLD GIRL?
    • lennysquiggy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26of course, but only after he THIGHED her for a few years. so really, the question is, was penetrative sex with a nine year old better/worse than THIGHING a six year old?
    • hoserjoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21I thought that Bill Clinton established that, according to all dictionary definitions, if there's _NO_ penetration, there's _NO_ sex. On this tiny detail, Clinton was legally correct. So the term "penetrative sex" is redundant. Sex is only "sex" if it's penetrative. Everything else is just fooling around. If it weren't for Clinton, I never would have known this important distinction.
    • Roger, on 10/14/2007, -5/+3Here's another T/F question:

      Did Americans force Africans into slavery less that 200 years ago?
    • desertdweller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@roger2
      "Here's another T/F question:

      Did Americans force Africans into slavery less that 200 years ago?"

      Yes, but we stopped over 100 years ago. Stop apologizing. Islamic intolerance goes back 1300 years and continues to this day. Americans have learned. Islam hasn't.
    • DarkPhotn, on 10/14/2007, -2/+4"Did Americans force Africans into slavery less that 200 years ago?"

      Actually, the African slave trade was started by Muslims. The Europeans then took it over, and America unfortunately inherited that.

      However, we then became the only country in the world to fight a war to (essentially) end slavery.
    • kooft, on 10/14/2007, -4/+3Right vs. Left arguments aside, how is it possible to 'unfortunately inherit' the subjugation of an entire race of people?
    • Roger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2My point is that centuries ago slavery wasn't considered wrong. Judging by todays morals its considered "bad", but that hasn't always been the case. If you want a more recent example, look at the issue of homosexuality.

      Secondly, that whole remark about Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old was purely inflammatory and most likely inaccurate. Some estimates put her age at 23.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha%27s_age_at_marriage for more.

      Also keep in mind that in some US states you can marry at age 13-14 and you're talking about an event that took place centuries ago in a completely different society.
  • appleann1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33FTA:

    "I in no way am in support of stopping freedom of speech they are actually abusing the Digg voting system to meet their own end while ruining the quality of content that reaches the front page on Digg."

    Typical, I support free speech, now shut up.
    • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@hoserjoe: Do you really need to be reminded of the actions of Cigarman? If that wasn't penetration then what is?
  • mtriviso, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33It is sad that 1,400 years of bloody jihad waged in the name of allah is not enough to satisfy the muslims. Conquering and destroying cultures from pre-islamic Arabia to the Persians to the Byzantines and now into the streets of Western Europe is simply not enough for the muslims. The muslim occupation of Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Alergia, Lybia are not enough. The muslims want more.

    Islam is spread through violence and destroys whatever culture it touches, replacing it with female genital mutilation, worship of death, and hatred of anything that resembles freedom. Islam needs to be destroyed.
    • luksy, on 10/12/2007, -33/+3Religion needs to be destroyed. And change has to come from within.
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18@luksy
      Typical secular progressive post. It doesn't matter that no christian religion is trying to silence any other religion. It only matters that you don't agree with the concept of religion, therefore they should ALL be silenced. That is what this post is refering to. This person doesn't like what's being said, therefore the person saying it should not be allowed to say it. Here's a clue for you, Islams fanatics don't care what you believe. If you're not muslim, you serve, pay, or die. Either way, if they win you WILL shut up.
    • 1389, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Too many people seem to think that they can use Islam as a club to destroy Judaeo-Christian civilization, so that they can install their own secular-socialist structure in its place. The world doesn't work that way.
  • Dunkenstein, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24Shut the dhimmis right up!
  • puhiawa, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Islam seeks to stifle critisism of it's primitive and cruel cult by using the multi-cultural babble of the left.
  • Sueharris, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Were it possible for tinfoil hatted leftist loons and jihadis to "get it". Both want it their way, period. No balance, no fairness, no "thought"! If Digg is to work, it must remain as neutral as possible. Unless of course, it too is tinfoil hatted. Hope not.
  • xdem, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Open dialog is the foundation of a free state. Censoring those who upset you or disagree with you is the antithesis of this.
  • gatesofvienna, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Islam has no rational, philosophical, or theological basis, in fact, the entire Islamic belief-system is contradicted by science, philosophy, commonsense, human decency and internal inconsistency. Islam cannot withstand rational criticism and can only spread and maintain itself by ignorance, illiteracy, war, terrorism, and intimidation. Discussion leads to knowledge and is a cure for ignorance. This is why Islamists will try to stifle all discussion about Islam, even on digg.
  • OrbitRain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15...guess what everyone!

    Islamist = fascist (with a religious twist)
  • SgtJonasParker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Freedom of speech for all, except conservatives. What a wonderful position...
  • mcfairy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19luksy ~ didn't realize that would exclude you from being able to submit to digg... so why isn't anyone burying ABC.COM, CNN.COM.... and on and on and on...

    Just admit your bias, seriously.
  • mcfairy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17You must bury ABC and all the alphabet media... Luksy says they don't count! ... they have -advertisers- for goodness sake! /sarcasm
  • NappieRed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Islamofascists only want free speech for themselves, but not anyone else - particularly those that expose the truth about islamic politicism.
  • somaking, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Koran-believing Muslims have no problem declaring war against Jews and Christians in particular, and any other religion in general.

    Then they cry like babies when somebody calls them names and draws cartoons! Why would anyone tolerate such nonsense?

    Oh. Is it because they're mass-murderers ?
  • mtriviso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Islam: peace through decapitation.

    Islam: no girls allowed!
  • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I really wish Digg would ditch the "Digg down without comment" options. Require everyone who diggs down an article to comment on it.

    It is totally disingenuous to declare an article is inn accurate, but not tell what is supposedly inn accurate about it, or to say it's spam, without pointing out exactly how it is that the article is trying to separate you from your money.

    It is a sad reflection on our politics here in the US that people choose more off ten to vote against a thing than to support any other thing.

    Reminds me of my ex-wife.
    Her - Lets go out to eat.
    Me- Great idea, Chinese?
    Her- No.
    Me- Italian?
    Her- No.
    Me- Streak house?
    Her- no.
    Me- French Cafe?
    Her- no.
    .
    .
    Me- Well how about you offer something constructive then.

    Looking back, it's no wonder really. Since she was a Liberal, she expected everyone else to solve her problems while she complained at how it was done.
    • Franklancer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8well, I can understand her saying no to a StReak House.. sounds racy..

      ;)
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2What!? You've never had Japanese beef! Damn good man.
      Especially the Plime lib!

      OK, OK,

      so I can't touch type worth a damn and I left my glasses in the other room. So sue me,,, or just laugh along,,,
      :~)
  • Mohamedisgay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Islam is a death cult, pure and simple. There majority of muslims are not moderate as the majority live in sharia dominated societies and this is not moderate so why do people say carp like that? FEAR!!!
  • packsoldier1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4What reputable woman would eat at a "Streak house"? For shame!
  • Americaninfidel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Why is it I can't tell the difference between the Islamics stance on free speech and the liberals stance on free speech?
  • Varchild, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Why is it I can't tell the diference between moral relativism and insanity?
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If moral relativism were truth, everything couldn't be our presidents fault, could it?
  • aidanmat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I've noticed these attempts at censorship by antiwar liberal types more and more.

    For instance even Wikipedia is vehemently attacked on comment pages. Brian Whitaker of The Guardian wrote a piece on this contempt for the online encyclopaedia ("Wiki Ways", Comment is Free, February 21, 2007) But why attack Wikipedia? It has a neutrality policy and usually errs on the politically-correct side of any debate.

    I can only guess that freedom of information is undermines their political agenda. There seem to be so many examples of this happening that no other explanation makes sense.
  • drbrighthead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It feels good to be hated by Jihadis & crypto-fascist "liberals".
    Censorship campaigns can add more fuel to the fire.
  • luksy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I'm neither a part of some far fetched Digg lefty propaganda team (I've only been commenting for a few days), nor do I care in the slightest for the outcome of this most recent spat (as I originally stated). Yes Islam is more often then not "vocal" shall we say, but LGF's whinings are also high on the list of recent annoyances on Digg. I'm not trying to equate LGF with attacks on free speech, but they are using Digg to turn this whole non-event into another theo-political circus, in what seems to me as an attempt to draw attention to themselves. Some outspoken religious nut is complaining, boo-hoo, let's whine about it and feel better about ourselves. Is islamic terrorism a threat? Yes. Is a solitary zealot going to somehow fundamentally influence the way the western world thinks and functions? Unlikely, as the comments above show.
    And yes I am aware of the irony of taking time to post and read comments on a post that I believe shouldn't exist.
  • sabraguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The lengths to which the moonbat left will go never ceases to amaze me. On the one hand they pontificate about the sanctity of human rights, and on the other hand they support terrorist groups ("We are all Hezbollah") who are racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and killers of innocent unarmed civilians. They claim to be green, but support Iran getting a nuclear bomb. They whine about civil liberties, but try to bury Diggs they disagree with. You couldn't make it up!
  • 71LesPaul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The ability to bury a story and disappear it from the public was the most important method the MSM used to slant their coverage and set the news agenda prior to blogs. Digg is trying to give the wounded leftist egos a trip down memory lane in this pithy site, where they can erase "unhelpful" stories that exacerbate their cognitive dissonance..

    The Bury feature is nothing more than a "shoutdown" of a public speaker, a despicable tactic used to destroy freedom of speech, under the guise of exercising freedom of speech. What a bunch of fools the digbots are.


  • jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I wonder of the attacks against LGF and similar blogs/sites are related to this impending Internet jihad.

    http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA32907
    "Alongside military jihad, which has been gaining momentum and extracting an ever growing price from many countries around the globe, Islamists have been developing a new form of warfare, termed "electronic jihad," which is waged on the Internet. This new form of jihad was launched in recent years and is still in its early stages of development. However, as this paper will show, Islamists are fully aware of its destructive potential, and persistently strive to realize this potential.

    Electronic jihad is a phenomenon whereby mujahideen use the Internet to wage economic and ideological warfare against their enemies. Unlike other hackers, those engaged in electronic jihad are united by a common strategy and ideology which are still in a process of formation. This paper aims to present the phenomenon of electronic jihad and to characterize some of its more recent developments. It lays out the basic ideology and motivations of its perpetrators, describes, as far as possible, its various operational strategies, and assesses the short- and long-term dangers posed by this relatively new phenomenon. The paper focuses on electronic jihad waged by organized Islamist groups that mobilize large numbers of hackers around the world to attack servers and websites owned by those whom they regard as their enemies. . . . "
  • AishaRA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Roger, you are ill-informed. The best ahadith say that Aisha was six. It is only the neophites and the modern apolotists who write that crapola about Aisha being an adult. Deal with it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.