I'll say it straight up: I'm on the side of Belien and those who defend the accused participants.
The obvious reasons are the flimsiness of Charles' arguments, mostly based on guilt by association, and the effectiveness of Belien's(and not only his) response which with facts explained why the charges layed out against VB and SD are unjust.
Charles' response to this was quite instructive and has had me considerably taken aback. In it he has shown some of his thoughts, idelogical leanings and behaviour that I frankly find incomprehensible that someone who claims to be a defender of the west can hold. First he took the criticism personally and then he began to ban posters on his site that disagreed with his assesment. Then he took issue with some things other posters proposed as solutions to the jihadist problem, namely deportation of muslim immigrants back to the land of origin and banned them as well.
From there he went from bad to worse. Because the renowned Norwegian blogger Fjordman and and members of the Gates of Vienna staff disagreed with him he removed them from their blogroll. I guess they too became neo-nazis all of a sudden. Then in order to prove his point about the Swedish SD he began using articles from notoriously leftist sources that featured articles and photos over a decade old about SD members expressing nazi sympathies. When it was pointed out that the SD has since purged itself of such elements(which were never dominant in the first place), Charles replied that nobody could get away from their roots. Then confronted with the Walid Shoebat story(and may I add David Horowitz because he is Johnson's role model in many ways) he replied that "Shoebat is different". Why? Because he, Charles Johnson, says so. With every step of the way LGF is digging itself a deeper hole.
One comment is quite telling of the ideological leanings of Charles Johnson. On one of the threads a poster by the name of Truumax asks him:
Charles, quick question. Are you cool with dymphna's comments about "those who prefer to live among their own kind" and "protecting the ethnic swede"? I don't know about you, but to me they're kinda borderline.
and Charles replies:
Quick answer: no, I'm not.
Two questions immediately spring up by themselves. What is wrong with wanting to live among people of your own nationality? And if Charles has a problem with that, what is the difference between him and the multicultural left?