This priceless twerp shoved explosives up his backside and tried to bump off (or should I say “bum” off?) one of the Saudi princes. Al-Asiri was not a pretty site, according to the reports but the Saudi prince was shocked more than injured.

Al-Asiri was recruited by al-Qaeda. In his photograph on Internet Haganah he looked, (how should we put it?) a bit lacking. I wonder whether he was a thoroughgoing pest, too. I ask myself this because, shame on me(!), I could imagine him asking his handlers for the nth time, “What did you say I should do with the explosives again?” and they finally answering “Oh shove them up your a**!”

You had some pretty good comments on the ridiculous postings on the “sheikh” thread.

The clean-up squad has been busy removing comments, and “disappearing” several.

sydk’s perfectly reasonable objection to the column – after several hours and about 20 -30 recommendations – gone!

sydk

07 Oct 09, 1:08pm (about 12 hours ago)
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

Well, he’ll be joining the rest on the bright side (here) pretty soon at that rate.

When I looked at about 4:30 pm US time, there were, I think, 88 comments – now there are 82.

Poof – 6 comments vanished into the ether.

The amount of sheer ignorance and rubbish posted by the Israel bashers on that thread has reached a new high (or low).

(I just hope this time I get the blockquote thing right!!)

Inability to distibguish between Al Aksa and the Dome of the Rock by someone who has never been to jerusalem but knows all about it:

Indigenous1

The al-Aqsa mosque is the most dominating feature of the Jerusalem skyline and is a familiar landmark the world over. An aerial view of Jerusalem would just be unrecognisable without it.

a claim that Al Aksa had been destroyed by Jews,

a claim that it was NOT destroyed because of the sheikh’s defence of the mosque,

a claim showing how Israel destroys the holy places of other religions by claiming the temple was built after the conquest of the Canaanites -(I’m not making this up!!):

Gareth100

07 Oct 09, 3:11pm (about 10 hours ago)

mmmherring,
Was not the temple in Jerusalem raised after the conquest of the land from the Canaanites?

Claims that Israel had denied the sheikh a Nobel prize to avoid recognition of islamic scientific advances (Gareth100 again):

Gareth100

You are denying Muslim scientific and medical preeminence in the later first and early to middle second millennia.?

The usual veiled threat of further Moslem violence:

23numbers

07 Oct 09, 4:34pm (about 9 hours ago)

Just to name a few:

There was an attempt to burn the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in 1969. Israel’s authorities even refused to send fire brigades to stop the fire which damaged it.

In 1980 there was an attempt to blow it up.

At the moment Israel is at its most right-wing self, so expect more attempts.

a claim that Israel created the failed Palestinian state by a resident Israeli Communist:

Matzpen

07 Oct 09, 5:33pm (about 8 hours ago)

Israel has provoked the creation of the world’s first failed non-state in the West Bank and Gaza.

a claim that Israel should have added 850,000 North African Jewish men, women, and children to its armed forces in the 1950′s:

Berchmans

07 Oct 09, 6:53pm (about 6 hours ago)

zamalek

## .when 850,000 Jews were driven out of Arab countries. ##

.

But surely there was some financial inducement and besides did lots not see the polarisation that would take place ? I would have . Also …of course ..850 000 recruits for the IDF.

and for the cherry on the cake just as the thread closed (probably the moderators couldn’t get off the floor for laughing), talknic shows up:

pokingpinocchio

07 Oct 09, 7:26pm (about 6 hours ago)

——–

So, to round it out, since the thread about the sheik also raised questions about why he isn’t given a Nobel prize, here’s something from my mailbox:

The world again ignores Islamic achievements

Once again the world has discriminated against the peace-loving Moslems by not awarding them a Nobel prize and giving it instead to a right-wing fascist settler colonialist from the Weizman Institute, Israeli Ada Yonath:

STOCKHOLM — Two Americans and an Israeli scientist won the 2009 Nobel Prize in chemistry on Wednesday for atom-by-atom mapping of the protein-making factories within cells – a feat that has spurred the development of antibiotics.

What about the Islamic advances in the chemistry of bomb making, huh??? Is that nothing??? Don’t forget that Islam invented algebra, which this Zionist stooge probably used when she copied her “discovery”, which was actually reported by Al-Bio-Khemia in 1497.

Why does the world always ignore Islam’s achievements? Don’t be surprised if there are massive reprisals by rightfully indignant Moslems against the world’s Zionist paymasters. I wouldn’t visit Oslo any time soon if I were you!!

Sometimes it seems to me you talk sense but here:

What if every single person who felt their views had been distorted or misrepresented on CiF were to be granted an article of their own in response?

The disputed matter is an author’s book: his livelihood. Of how many is that true?

Also:

A lot of people above simpy resort to nasty personal slurs against him instead of addressing the actual issues.

Some people have disapproved of the use of “self-hating”. But Lerman was pointing to Goldstone as a “good” Jew. I do not see how that is possible when Goldstone did not judge, which his experience qualifies him to do, but took the word of one side only, turning himself into a messenger for the utterly corrupt, antisemitic UN.

(I hope the minute amount of HTML works.)

I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you and your attempt to excuse CiF’s bias as some artefact of the www is risible.

Let’s agree that al-Grauniad is terminally confused and that it regularly confuses anti-Zionism with Jew-hatred. As for the Jews who are allowed to write there, I’ve never actually counted them and I’d bet that not one of them is capable of standing up and speaking out in the paper proper against CiF’s obsession with Israel. (If I am wrong about this, then please post a link).

“Overkill” is an unfortunate word, pretzelberg, given that we cannot know yet how many budding jihadis are spurred into action by the anti-Israel filth commissioned by Henry and her coven, which gives permission for the anti-Jewish racism below the line.

And would you be able to point out any pieces on CiF which are even-handed and well-written and which don’t mislead the reader into believing that the author’s burblings are based on hard facts rather than ill-researched matters of opinion? Guardianistas often lose the capability to make the important distinction between opinion and fact – if indeed they ever had it. Again, please post links here.

I am not blind. Of course Comment is Free is not “an institution … free of antisemitism” – because it’s part of the WWW and you will sadly always get your hate-mongerers posting there. And let’s face it – we also often see posts alluding to “uncivilized/Nazi Arabs.”
But referring to “Institutional antisemitism at the Guardian” is something different altogether.
If that were the case, how would you explain the many (more than just a token few) Jewish contributors to various areas of the paper and online version – most of which have little to do with Jews and/or Israel?

Yes, I often feel there is overkill on I/P. I consider Richard Silverstein, for example, to be a waste of space. I also feel there is an imbalance of articles.
But on CiF you also see a massive amount of pieces that could be classed as “anti-American” or indeed “anti-British.”
I can understand Israelis feeling “singled-out”, but IMO the situation has more to do with left-wing dogmatism (i.e. a myopic good guy vs. bad guy perspective) than anti-Semitism.

Have you a fever?

I would’ve liked to see Robin get a full right to reply, but just because he didn’t is no grounds for screaming “institutional antisemitism.”

What if every single person who felt their views had been distorted or misrepresented on CiF were to be granted an article of their own in response?

For all his many faults, Anthony Lerman has been proved right in his general point by the comments on this very thread. A lot of people above simpy resort to nasty personal slurs against him instead of addressing the actual issues.

Matt Seaton is amazingly patronising too. And with so little reason – look what he does for a living and how he goes about it.

Does he really care about ”Jewishness” or are his connections with Israel a form of pride befitting his place in society? Is it pride in his Jewishness to ignore the extraordinary lengths that the IDF goes to to avoid civilian deaths? Even if he still intended to find individual soldiers or commanders or units guilty of the crimes he lists a proud Jew would point to the Rules of Engagement and to the measures taken by the army to keep civilians safe and observed pikuah nefesh (saving souls) as we are told to do as Jews.

Why does Lerman find that he has to defend someone who so clearly wishes to do harm to Israel? As StarofDavid pointed out on the thread if Goldstone was what Lerman sees him as why did Meshal or Hanniyeh not question the appointment of a Jew to head the mission?
Mr. Lerman, why did the Muslim bloc at the UN Human Rights Council not denounce the appointment of a Jew, a Zionist no less, to head the mission?

I wonder about that.

If I read offerings from a ‘nominal Christian’ in the UK pointing out all the fallacies implicit in ‘Christian teachings’ and the obvious fallacies of the implementation of those teachings in UK life generally, I may well define him as a ‘self hating Christian’. However, I would keep that opinion to myself or perhaps share it with close acquaintances whose opinions and reactions I trusted.

As a Jew, albeit atheist, I would never make those opinions public.

Jonathan Hoffman. This post of yours has ‘bumped’ CIFWatch ‘up’ a few notches.