The real Berchmans is still posting to CiF , the same twisted soul who can’t understand why anyone could blame Hamas for behaving as it does – sacrificing its people and its children, encouraging them to die for Allah by teaching them that death, rather than life, is glorious, particularly if they explode themselves among Jews, and he is on record as saying that the Hamas Charter, which advocates this same Jew-hatred and is the basis for suicide murder of Israelis is a “negotiating stance!”

This from CiF. It’s a good job he’s honest in his Janus-facedness isn’t it? I dread to think what he might be like if he was actually good at al-takeyya):

Here’s what he wrote, brought to our attention by HairShirt:

“Berchmans

8 Feb 2010, 4:54PM

Keo2008

.

“Hamas wants to destroy Israel. ”

.

Its a negotiating stance.I am sure they would settle for the 67 green line , some water and some reassurances. The point I make as you well know as you always respond to this.. is that what a brutalised, hidden and poverty striken people put on a document is of secondary consideration to the cause of the problem.

What kind of document would you write scurrying about in reinforced basements ..hiding from the astonishingly successful IDF after 60 years of watching your relatives and friends being bumped off? I dream that one day Jewish and Muslim children will walk hand in hand…? He would have been in an Israeli jail before you could say equality.

B”

HairShirt continues, and I endorse:

All of this shows, Berchmans, that you are a duplicitous and deliberately mendacious b*****d, whose unreconstructed ideas are not capable of amendment however reasoned and shored up by provable facts might be the opposing arguments. For all you may write here about condemning antisemitism you post something completely other on CiF

Well written HairShirt!

“don’t lecture us. It’s really naff coming from such a one as you.”

You really should learn to take criticism. Im surprised you cant…… you will have had a lot !

“the third explicit call for murder en masse (all Jews on the WB) or of a politician (Shimon Peres) or assassination (Tony Blair) to appear on CiF.”

Steady AKUS . Tom W said he didnt care if the kill rate of Palies to Israelis was one to 1000 and his comment stayed here. At least the Guardian deleted these brutal and nasty posts.

Let the site that is without sin cast the first injunction.

I think JerusalemMite and Berch are in a battle to post the most ridiculous hyperbole on this site.

” Probably 8:1 of articles in some way trying to paint the ‘evil Zionist entity’ as an ”

I have never ever seen this except posted by Zionists trying to imply critics of Israel are hyperbolic.

The Guardian should be thinking seriously of shutting down CiF except for articles dealing with whether to put milk in before the tea or after

But that in itself is a veritable powderkeg of an issue, AKUS. How can you be so ignorant?

If proof was need of the type of reader the Guiardian is attracting these days, we are starting to see it writ large.

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin started in the same way – calls for his death that ultimately triggered the idea in a fanatic’s mind to translate words into action.

The Guardian should be thinking seriously of shutting down CiF except for articles dealing with whether to put milk in before the tea or after. There are enough neo-Nazi and ultra-left-Wing and jihadi sites out there to do the job they seem to be doing without their help.

After seeing the similar thread about Peres a couple of days ago, I thought: but the web (incl. CiF) is awash with such comments about politicians (not that this makes them excusable). Tony Blair, I imagined, must have been the subject of many such calls.

And lo and behold …

Its front page reporting is orientated to finding fault with the above and they do have their faults. However, they are so much better and more successful than what the editorial management cabal want to see.

On CiF, the editorial bias really comes into play so much more strongly. Taking the I/P conflict. Probably 8:1 of articles in some way trying to paint the ‘evil Zionist entity’ as an illegal and brutish state ruled by religious zealots. This then presents as logical, that Israel is no better that Iran.

And the moderation policy is published as one thing but is actually something entirely different. It is used to subtly present the GWV as the ‘norm’ whereas, in reality. It is the fantasy of seriously deranged people who will not accept others point of view. For them, Israel=bad, Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims=good. I am sure that there is some psychological explanation for this debilitating condition. It is something that affects hard core BNP members as well.

In short. It affects all extremists.

It isn’t just the I/P threads that attract this kind of poster,they are everywhere in every thread of the Guardian,as soon as a new thread comes on the Guardian,the same idiotic posters are the first ones to jump in headlong with their two bits worth of bilge.

“The Gorgeous One advocating violence”

No he didnt advocate violence. Look he is a buffoon…you should be able to score points without making things up.

No he didnt say Blair “should” be killed. The champagne cat stroker said it would be the moral equivalent of the deaths of the Iraqis. A blundering and possibly drunken own goal ..none the less he did not say “should.” There is a difference . One is urging a criminal act. The other isnt.