In a continuing series of articles defending Ahmadinejad’s regime, the Guardian rolled out the antisemitic stooge of the Islamic Republic of Iran, George Galloway, to argue that its time to end the Bush-era bellicosity against the Islamic Republic. 

As has become a regular feature now on I/P threads, the Guardian’s moderators issued its “off-topic” warning, albeit in a more friendlier tone.

CommunityMod

03 Oct 09, 2:43am

OFF-TOPIC WARNING

Please restrict comments to the issues raised in the article.

Thanks

ComMod

But don’t let the friendliness deceive you. Over 25% of the comments were deleted (hat tip Ariadne) including a comment from one of the only pro-Israel Guardian contributors, PetraMB. And the number of deletions would be even higher if it included those comments which were deleted without a trace!

So lets take a closer look at what prompted the “off-topic” warning in the middle of the thread.

Lets start off with NapoleonKaramazov, one of the first victims who went “off-topic” with the following:

NapoleonKaramazov

02 Oct 09, 10:14pm

George, I used to have some respect for you, but now I don’t. I’ve grown older. We don’t need your silly sixth form ideology. (Although I do agree with you about Afghanistan).

-Stop posturing and attend to the needs of your constituents. Attend parliament more often.

-I’m not a big fan of Israeli policies but deliberatly making analogies with apartheid, racism and Nazis is disturbing. Especially if you share the stage with fringe Islamic nuts.

Frankly, I think that Bush era neocon ideology was bad, but I also think Iran is not something to be supported. It is after all a Theocracy. Amazing the transformation you made from secular Marxism to defend corrupt Theocracies.

Remember the last time we heard about Iranian government reps in Switzerland. That whole holocaust denial thing that prompted boycotts and walkouts…?

Shortly afterwards we have a whole series of Peter Parker’s comments deleted without a trace. Here are a couple of examples (apologies for the formatting):

PeterParker

02 Oct 09, 10:57pm

The hawks are circling

You don’t need to remind us who has stated that he wants to wipe another country of the face of the earth/off the page of time.

On full parade was Britain’s post-empire arrogance, which treats a sophisticated state as an errant child in need of a good slap from an authoritarian parent.

What arrogance was that?

The pressure for a more aggressive policy, not least from Israel and its supporters, towards Iran and others has not gone away.

When a world leader wants to wipe another country off the face of the earth, and he his developing technology, you can hardly blame its neighbours pushing for an aggressive policy towards Iran. Appeasement and ignorance did nothing in the 1930s.

What the hawks oppose is Iran playing any major role in the region

Quite a few of its neighbours (including the Arab neighbours) share this view as well.

They now risk the same outcome in Afghanistan. The US top brass are pushing for large new deployments into a country which has been the graveyard of armies

I see what you mean. We should give up and hand over the country to the fascist Taliban.

Talking peace with Iran while pursuing a hopeless war in another of its neighbours is a policy for chaos.

Talking peace? I haven’t seen much indication Ahmedinijad wants to talk peace.

Live long…

PeterParker

02 Oct 09, 11:27pm

couchtripper
02 Oct 09, 10:58pm (24 minutes ago)

Reading this stuff it makes me wonder whether the general public deserve the vote if they support their nations in such chaos.

Funny that. I often whether the public who support terrorists organisations around the world deserve the vote.

But that wouldn’t go down very well with RESPECT. They’d be voted out.

Live long…

And here is NARCO who tried in vain to explain to CommieMod, sorry I mean ComMod ,what is causing all these “off topic” comments. Of course, Commode doesn’t like being told what the problem is so NARCO’s comment got flushed down the toilet (sorry just can’t help the toilet humor).

NARCO

03 Oct 09, 5:00am

CommunityMod

03 Oct 09, 2:43am (about 2 hours ago)

Staff OFF-TOPIC WARNING

Please restrict comments to the issues raised in the article.</

i>
I empathize with you and don’t envy your job.
The problem here as I see it is multi-pronged as follows;

1-Mr. Galloway , the author of the article, has a somewhat colorful background that stretches from the British Parliament to being a spokesperson for the Palestinians, to having his own show on the Islamic Republic propaganda site, PressTV.

This (C.V.) alone is confusing enough for regular folk like me.

2-The discussion tends to become further off the mark when the same individual comes out of nowhere and starts accusing people (whom he calls Hawks ) for having poor intentions towards this newly opened dialogue with the Islamic Republic.

Mr. Galloway is seen as a God by some of his (less informed ) fans, whom I am sure are having a field day here and pressing the “abuse button” repeatedly on all posts that don’t please them. (hence the evident wreck of a discussion forum herein).

Mr. Galloway also seems to have found yet another opportunity to cloud the real issue here, which is a dialogue with Iran, promised and already delivered by Obama administration .

There are no “Hawks” circling this newly opened domain, other than a few crows that fly around in Mr. Galloway head, and it seems that he is sharing the experience with his followers also afflicted with the same condition.

Please consider letting everyone have a good time, as it is impossible to remain focused, when it comes to Mr. Galloway.

Thanks and my best regards

NARCO

NARCO is obviously new to this and not familiar with the Guardian’s new talk policy and the Guardian World View. 

And never ever make the mistake of accusing CiF of censoring comments, as did Stephen Hero, because Herr Mod in true Orwellian fashion will just delete the baseless accusation.

StephenHero

03 Oct 09, 2:53pm

nettletonwrote
The number of blocked comments indicate the degree of hatred George Galloway’s valid comments arouse.

Could just as well read; “the number of valid comments being blocked indicate the degree of hypocrisy and censorship practiced by CIF”

MartynEurope Your description of the word “racism” is pretty accurate, I reckon. How about running it by yourself before decrying a critic of a brutal regime or medieval religious practices as racist

And finally never ever commit the ultimate sin of asking what possesses the Guardian to allow Galloway to spew his hate-filled garbage.

mike65ie

02 Oct 09, 11:09pm

Serious question for a moderator/editor

HOW DOES THIS STUFF GET COMMISSIONED?

So just in case you are wondering what is “on-topic”, take a look at this one from Revround (hat tip again to Ariadne) which advocates invading Israel to solve the Iran and North Korea nuclear problem. Just think a nuclear and Jew-free world all in one go.

Revround 03 Oct 09, 1:29am 

As revealed by satirical magazine salon de Canard and confirmed by Ariva (the French nuclear industry) Tricastin (uranium processing) is 40% controlled by and 10% owned by Tehran.
Tricastin supplies 25% of the worlds processed uranium.

No one is going to get me to believe the “top” politicians did not know this.

Regarding nuclear energy it has always been a by product of the nuclear weapons industry and with so much sunny desert why has not Iran invested in solar energy?

Regarding rogue nuclear states perhaps if Israel were invaded and illegal weapons of mass destruction were FOUND that would send a very real and very clear message to both Iran and North Korea.

Nuclear energy is a dirty filthy lazy design solution.
And the military industrial complex thinks firing depleted uranium shells is a safe form of waste disposal.

So all you people who vote Labour and Conservative I hope you are happy about being conscripted (your children too!). With President Blair leading the whole of Europe to war it looks like a busy time ahead.

So let me pose this simple question to Georgina, Matt and Brian – and again I know you are reading this with more embarassment after your rejection of Robin Shepherd’s request to reply to Lerman’s defamatory statements on CiF yesterday – if Comment is Free is supposed to live up to its name (otherwise why would you call it that), what’s your explanation for the deletions and why was Revround’s comment not deleted?

The evidence against the monster that you have created continues to mount…