Amazing how the so-called “off topic” ground for deletion seems to be directed towards certain viewpoints.
Here’s to your posts, TZ. The moderators hate your guts so you must be doing something right.
Except … I don’t see any posts on that thread eulogizing JNews. Do you?
Absolute nonsense. There were plenty of posts criticizing JNews on the relevant threads recently.
What a non-article this is.
You don’t need a post eulogizing JNews to demonstrate that it was deleted for expressing a negative opinion about JNews.
Absolutely objective news story from that bastion of fair and balanced reporting MEMRI, on Galloway and the Viva Palestina convoy.
Purveyors of the finest Middle East news that the US government wants to listen to.
Notice how MEMRI can be critiqued without deletion on a thread has nothing to with MEMRI. Moreover, it appears that the comment that doolalley was responding to was deleted – which I imagine is because it dared mention MEMRI.
*The majority of comments were critical of the article, some highly critical.
*They receive a high number of recommendations while comments supporting the premise of the article received few recommendations.
I found myself wondering if I was really reading the Guardian.
Is this a change or does this kind of negative reaction to terror-supporting opinion pieces happen frequently at CIF?
And does CIF watch also watch these kind of positive occurrences at the Guardian or does the blog only expose the negatives?
TrueToo, you have not understood the Guardian Word View, to which below-the-line commenters must adhere (and Guardian thought police – ooops, moderators – enforce).
In the Guardian Word View, terrorist attacks on Russians are reprehensible; terrorist attacks on Jews are heroic.
In the Guardian Word View, terrorist attacks on Russians are reprehensible; “freedom fighter” attacks on Jews are heroic.
There does seem to be a slightly different wind blowing. Bit early to decide yet.
Presumably Porgina is peeling spuds. Not clear what Matt Seaton’s part in this is if at all.
I noticed that Matt was commenting below the line at http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/guardian-calls-israel-an-arrogant-nation-gives-op-ed-to-foreign-office-grandee-who-complained-about-jews-on-the-iraq-inquiry/#comment-2716 defending CiF.
FWIW I think the deletions were silly..TZ is a prime candidate for ridicule with his ” lefty land” …”newshungry lefties” and “usual lefty suspects ” hilarity . I would have kept them and shown him what a chump he is.
No news on JNews – probably cleaning out for Passover!
Would he include Hamas and Cast Lead as indicating the truth of this argument?
Seaton on the Moscow thread said, “the purpose of terrorist ’spectaculars’ was and is always to provoke a disproportionate use of force by the state and sharpen the conflict.” Would he include Hamas and Cast Lead as indicating the truth of this argument?
Even if he did, I do not see any disproportionate use of force in Cast Lead even though I felt at the time that phosphorous flares were not the best choice of flares to use.
Epidermoid. Another thing. I don’t think that even the intention of terrorism is to provoke a disproportionate response. The UK underground bombers were hardly looking for a disproportionate response. They were trying to persuade the UK public that UK forces fighting Muslims will only lead to more terrorism.
The underlying intent was to change UK Foreign Policy by undemocratic means. By using fear. Fear of terrorism.
But, Matt Seaton saying what he did and on other comments where, for instance, he referred to Shlomo Sands ‘research’ saying that it must be viewed within the context of Shlomo Sands being an obsessive anti Zionist, reeks of change. But, the question is – is Matt Seaton changing or is ‘The Guardian’ changing?
He certainly caused consternation amongst the The CiF Comedy Club.
13 Israelis and 1400 Palestinians RIP.
No – but the lack thereof doesn’t stop you from jumping to conclusions, does it?
Notice how MEMRI can be critiqued without deletion on a thread has nothing to with MEMRI.
But it was in RESPONSE to another comment, wasn’t it?
The same cannot be said for toryzionists’s posts.
That said, however, said posts were pretty harmless – and I find their deletion rather petty.
I’d expect a hate-filled individual like Toko to come up with despicable nonsense such as “terrorist attacks on Jews are heroic” in the GWV.
But since when as the normally level-headed TW stooped to such depths?
Billion and a half Arabs:5 million Jews.
What proportion of each died in Gaza?
Who launched the rockets that caused the ruckus?
In which parallel universe would that be, then?
It’s in any case a ridiculous argument.
Hamas is demanding more than 1000 Palestinian prisoners be released for a single Gilad Shalit. Surely Hamas is setting the parameters of the worth of an Israeli and a Palestinian?
I see these exchanges more in terms of the value Israel places on its citizens’ lives. Then again, it should be said that this is common among wealthier and militarily stronger nations, i.e. they can afford to.
It was wholly proportionate, or even not proportionate enough, for it should have killed many more Hamas. My point was, does Seaton agree that the Hamas terrorists hoped for an aggressive Israeli attack, after which they could claim success if they killed many soldiers, and success if the soldiers killed many civilians? In other words, does he agree that Hamas might engineer the deaths of women and children by using them as human shields, after which they can rely on fellow travellers in the West to castigate Israel just as they are eager to do with WP, about which they know nothing, other than its value as an imagined horror to libel the IDF.
I dont know if I completely buy this… but it was sent to me when I did one of my “” no to any attacks on Israeli civilians “” posts.
How much control did Hamas have over its homocidal renegades??? its hard to say. My feeling is no one on either side has clean hands. Maybe if they werent being targetted they could have had more say.. I dont know.
Is there a proportion you had in mind??.. One that included all Hamas leaders??? All Hamas voters ???..All guys over 16 under 50? The CIF team can rest easy with such extreme posts on its monitoring site.
The number of deaths amongst the unjust is a function of how many there are of them, and the efficiency of the just to remove them. That there are many more dead murderers than their exterminators is to be welcomed, not condemned. Where it may be more difficult is when the just belligerents realise that the murderers have gathered around them innocents to exploit the better morals of their enemy, who might restrict their fury. However, if the removal of the murderers is deemed militarily worthwhile, and the only way to do it is also to kill civilians, then the responsibility for those deaths rests solely with the offender’s against humanity, in this case Hamas.
That would be too much to hope for but the leaders did not lead and fled as they often do leaving the innocent to suffer and bleed on as many pages in the West as possible.
The delineation between ” unjust” and ” just ” is above my pay grade. Having worked with murderers for decades I see good where maybe others dont. But to brand an entire people as “just” and an entire people as ” unjust ” …this is weird and discriminatory I wish you good see it.
berchmans You’ve been told over and over that that article is thin and flimsy. Your lack of honesty in this is characteristic of you.