Liberals vs conservatives and liberals vs liberals

This is not the usual crazy political rants. Although it has some relation and similarities. Liberal, I mean, as in true liberal, classical liberal, people who are interested in humanity first and not just their moral purity first.

it's LGF, the classical liberal of the new generation, vs Dean Esmay a old school liberal of the old generation. Kind of interesting in a way.

Dean Esmay’s doing an excellent impression of a snarling, snapping chihuahua again, this time attacking Michelle Malkin and Hot Air, and calling anyone who disagrees with him a “traitor.” Along the way he throws in the obligatory anti-LGF smears—and all of it without a single quote to back up his ridiculous rant. If you’re interested, check it out at Michelle’s site; I’m not going to play Esmay’s “send me some traffic” game any more: How not to argue about Islam.

JihadWatch:However, in my eagerness to find such people I am not going to allow myself to be fooled. I have read the Qur'an many, many times. I have read Bukhari, Muslim, and other Hadith collections. I have read the Sira of Ibn Ishaq. I have read treatises of Islamic law and first-hand accounts of Islamic history. All that brings me to certain inescapable conclusions about Islamic doctrine, Muhammad's character and behavior, and more -- conclusions which I have documented in my books. Then when I read various Muslim moderates, they state that the Qur'an teaches, and that Muhammad taught, and that Islam as a whole teaches, very different things from what I know to be the case.

JihadWatch:What should I do then? Clap my hands and shout, "Yea, here's a Muslim moderate"? Well, I haven't done that. Their omissions, distortions, and misrepresentations make me suspicious. As I have said many times, it is easy to convince Westerners who know nothing of Islam that Islam is peaceful. It is harder to convince mujahedin. I am all for real moderate Muslims. I am not for getting deceived. If I can see that a moderate's account of Islamic teaching is inaccurate, a mujahid will certainly be able to also. And if that moderate's moderation won't convince Muslims, what's the point of it? To make non-Muslims feel better? I would rather have the truth than feel better on the basis of half-truths, thank you.

Malkin has the specific comments Dean made, if you want specifics. Follow the link to her site for those specifics.

Dean is rather curmundgeon like, you know. It's like an argument with the grandfather, he knows best and he won't listen to anything you say. It's not an indictment against him, but more of an analysis of his personality.

I read his side of things first, and while I found it wrong on a premise based analysis, I did not find it too offensive. It was wrong on the premise that Malkin doesn't respect our Muslim allies, and it was wrong on the premise that Malkin is required to do something about all those right wing trolls who talk about dumping Iraq for America. Malkin cannot seriously do anything about those who are interested in iraqi civil strife or a 3 state solution or anything like that. She has no influence on that side of the Republicans, the "pro-war" tent if you will. People like Ralph Peters and skippy, what is she going to do with them? If Dean has a problem with people who disrespect our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, then he should stick up for them specifically and attack their attackers, instead of calling upon LGF and Malkin to do the attacking.

Place your bets, see the fight!

Update:After Reading Dean and Malkin's side, I'm more inclined to be a peace maker, a diplomat. All this fighting is to no end after all. War is not for entertainment, regardless of how many grim jokes are told to me and laughed at by me.