Berchmans&#8217; dehumanizing comment about Israelis: 266 Recommends &amp; not deleted by CiF&nbsp;moderators

The internet also allows the opportunity to portray multiple anonymous voices that can parrot each other, all the while insisting there is some faux quorum or agreement on a particular thought. Who says that White Supremacists haven’t taken on various news websites by dominating their discussion boards? This is my primary complaint with my hometown newspaper where you can’t write an article about Hollywood without some sick reference to Jews and Zionists in control of American thought and culture. Hatemongers know how to spread their filth. Be devoted, be consistent, and follow the rules of not using words that will lead to an automatic removal. These people may be stupid enough to have sex with their cousins, but they have definitely figured out how to infiltrate a publicly accessed website.

March 6, 2012 at 2:09 pm

SerJew

“These people may be stupid enough to have sex with their cousins, but they have definitely figured out how to infiltrate a publicly accessed website.” koufax

But, mostly, as smart demopaths, they exploit the current moral confusion generated by PC ideology and its bogus concept of “fairness”, as if each and every non-sense had the same validity and right to come to light, particularly at the expense of other people´s bona-fides: that´s how criacionists argue and that´s how islamists, anti-West and judeophobes now act.

So, to a great extent WE are at fault for giving a free platform for such haters and intellectual delinquents, as everybody is more concered with being “polite” and not being perceived as curtailing free-speech.

No one has the *obligation* to provide a platform for haters. They can spew their sh*t elsewhere, in their own blogs or at mental institutions.

March 6, 2012 at 2:36 pm

I’m not a fan of maniacal PC mantras, but I also will not blame Political Correctness with the decline of Western civilization. It’s one thing to not censor Mark Twain; it’s another thing to not tell Rush Limbaugh to shut his fat, flap trap. I don’t like the designation of “N-word” but I would not shout out that word unless I am making a point about it. Folks on the Right who want to push the buttons of acceptable behavior have been pegging the “PC police” as truncators on their self-expression for a bit too long.

At the end of the day, the newspapers own their web domains. If they feel it’s necessary to allow folks to infiltrate and claim a bunch of nonsense about Israel, Zionism, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Environmentalists, etc, then they should suffer the consequences of not only a failing readership, but a complete lack of credibility.

March 6, 2012 at 2:44 pm

SerJew

My impression is that folks on the Left are the ones that use the PC-card much more often, and in fact they invented the concept to begin with.

March 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Maybe the issue is defining what is PC behavior. Rush Limbaugh, for example, doesn’t necessarily just fly in the face of PC behavior but general decency. But when I complain about Rush, I am told to not be a PC police officer. I’m not. I just don’t agree with terminology like Feminazi.

But if PC behavior is about banning books with bad words, then that behavior lies heavily along the lines of banning books for religious reasons. Banning books isn’t liberal. Changing terminology may have some well-meaning behind its cause, but the end result is the polar opposite of what it means to be Liberal.

March 6, 2012 at 5:03 am

Gerald

anneinpt, your question highlights some of the problems created by the internet.
Before the internet, granted we have always had the ‘green ink’ brigade, if you wrote a letter to a newspaper you had to provide your name and address even if your name and or address was withheld from being published.
The internet gives anonymity and allows people, including the deranged, to post comments that would never have been published before particularly where the ‘moderation’ is slow or slipshod.
I don’t think the internet has created these people, but rather like naughty children hiding behind a bush or a wall and shouting out swear words at passers by, it encourages or at least allows them to behave in a way that they would not dare otherwise.
Of course we have the regular posting of comments by those who have some form of anti-semitic Tourette’s syndrome, but they have always existed just that in the past they couldn’t hide behind the anonymity given to them by the internet.
I think you will find that the anti-semites, including some who post here, are not only brainless and clueless but spineless as well.

March 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm

SerJew

“Of course we have the regular posting of comments by those who have some form of anti-semitic Tourette’s syndrome,..” Gerald

LOL! Perfect.

March 6, 2012 at 7:54 am

anneinpt, I believe that some of the posters are actually the same person using multiple names.

I’ve have thought it would be a good project to collect the anti-Israel posts and analyze them for content and word usage.

March 6, 2012 at 4:56 am

I don’t know this guy, but let’s assume Adam is telling the truth about Berchman’s position.

“Imagine if a commenter had suggested that President Obama is morally subhuman?”

Would be valid if he described Netanyahu as morally subhuman, which he didn’t. He said he doesn’t get on with humans.

“Claims Ahmadinejad has not, in fact, denied the Holocaust,”

That’s a stretch.

“Claims Iran is not pursing nuclear weapons”

A claim consistent with the opinions of all 16 US intelligence agencies, the Israeli intelligence community, and Obama’s own defence secretary. I mean, they can’t ALL be anti-Semites…can they?

“Endorses the views of Norman Finkelstein”

Normans views are that a solution to the conflict should be a two-state solution along the lines of international law, and that the memories of the victims of the Jewish genocide are abused for political gain. Shocking.

“Suggests that Hollywood and the media have pandered to Israel in advancing their Zionist narrative”

I don’t watch much of what Hollywood produces, but certainly this is true of the elite media, and also of the bulk of scholarship.

“Argues that the charge of “Holocaust denial” is merely a cynical means to tar any criticism of Israel with the false charge of antisemitism.”

Well, use of the “Holocaust card” as a political cricket bat is well documented. On this site alone, I’ve been accused of Holocaust denial, in spite of being staunchly opposed to such denial.

“Says: “modern antisemitism is an IDF-related phenomena””

That’s a very narrow view. Herzlian Zionism was the the same as 19th century classical anti-Semitism. The colonisation of Palestine by the Zionists obviously started a new chapter in the chronicles of anti-Semitism, which continues to this day, the actions of the IDF are just one tiny aspect of it.

“Opines that Zionists engage in an orchestrated assault on opinion at ‘Comment is Free’”

That would be funny were we not on CiFWatch, a site dedicated to mounting an orchestrated assault on opinion at “Comment is Free”.

“Suggests that Hamas’ charter is not antisemitic”

The charter is eye-wateringly anti-Semitic, but the charter is not in use today. The Hamas platform on which they were elected isn’t anti-Semitic.

“Implies that Hamas is justified in hating Jews”

Hmmm.

March 6, 2012 at 5:14 am

Juan P. Lewis

“I don’t watch much of what Hollywood produces, but certainly this is true of the elite media [pandered to Israel in advancing their Zionist narrative], and also of the bulk of scholarship.”

This is actually NOT true. There’s a myth that the media are mostly pro-Israel. That might be the case in the US, and depending on where you look at. If you see Europe, for example, until very recently the Telegraph was not sympathetic to Israel, and the Guardian and the Indy are rather hostile. In Spain, El País, the most read high brow, is anti-Israel, sometimes mendaciously so, as it’s most of the press. Greek newspapers, better not to go there. In France, opinions tend to be from the mildly sympathetic to the utterly hostile. Germany is different, but for its past, I reckon. In Italy, il Corriere is quite pro-Israel, but other outlets are much more critical. Scandinavian countries have a lot of printed anti-Zionist press, and so does Holland.

If you go to Latin America, the same is the case. In Mexico, for example, a newspaper like La Jornada, has called Israel “a colony of the US” and “the master of puppets that controls US policy”… all in the same article… Argentinean newspapers tend to be quite sympathetic to Israel, but you will find a lot of criticism of Zionism, particularly in Pagina 12.

The idea that the elite media panders to Zionism is based on conspiracy theories rather than reality.

March 6, 2012 at 5:19 am

I was thinking specifically of the UK elite media. It’s trivially true in the US, but the UK is more interesting. Pro-Israel bias has been documented quite extensively, particularly by the Glasgow Media Group.

Describing Israel as a US colony is amusing though, if only for its sheer inaccuracy.

March 6, 2012 at 5:33 am

Juan P. Lewis

“Pro-Israel bias has been documented quite extensively, particularly by the Glasgow Media Group.”

The Glasgow Media Group is not an unbiased source. It would tag as pro-Israel anything that is not openly pro-Palestinian. The UK mainstream media is not pro-Israel. The Times may be, and possibly the Telegraph (and you have to qualify it), but certainly not the Guardian and the Indy. The BBC is seen by everyone as their enemy… pro-Palestinians think it’s a Zionist outlet, and pro-Israelis accuse it of demonizing Israel. I think that shows that there’s some truth in the Beeb’s commitment to balance.

Political and cultural magazines cover the whole spectrum. I wouldn’t call the Economist, for example pro-Zionist, and the LRB for example is openly anti-Israel.

March 6, 2012 at 5:41 am

There is no such thing as an unbiased source, not in my experience. It’s not the right question to ask. “Does their research stand up to scrutiny” is the right question to be asking.

You might disagree with their findings (which from memory relate to TV coverage), but I’m aware of no scholarly challenge to their methodology.

March 6, 2012 at 8:27 am

March 6, 2012 at 12:27 pm

And your “highest court in the world” would also be biased.

Happy Nakba dubi!

SerJew

LOL. Exactly: it´s right here that doo-doo´s progressivistic dogmatism come to light. He´s a moral relativist about everybody else, excep regarding his own little pseudo-humanist credo.

Yeah, who was just whining about “double standards”? Yeah, it was doo-doo, the master hypocrite.

March 6, 2012 at 12:24 pm

SerJew

“There is no such thing as an unbiased source, not in my experience.” doo-doo

Man, for the uptenth time you come up with a sweeping generalization. But, for someone who claims to speak for “the rest of the world”, that´s not surprising.

See, doo-doo, you Goebbelian monologues aren´t working.

March 6, 2012 at 8:20 am

http://www.bbcwatch.com/reports.html

Juan,

March 6, 2012 at 5:24 am

Juan P. Lewis

“Implies that Hamas is justified in hating Jews”
Hmmm.”

Berchmans does this all the time. I’ve challenged him on that because it shows a racism of low expectations towards Muslims.

US imperialism in Latin America would make the occupation of the WB a picnic. Not a single Latin American anti-imperialist movement ever asked for the killing of American civilians or espoused the type of racist bile Hamas is famous for. The same goes for the Saharawis. Where’re they shouting “death to Moroccans!”

Implying that Muslims are justified in their anti-Semitism because of Israel’s actions is treating them like automatons with no moral compass.

March 6, 2012 at 5:26 am

Indeed. It’s the obverse of the argument that Israelis are justified in hating Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians.

Unfortunately, moving from the specific to the general is a flaw in human thinking that transcends religion and culture.

March 6, 2012 at 8:22 am

March 6, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Are checkpoints at every airport “Islamophobic”?

SerJew

“Indeed. It’s the obverse of the argument that Israelis are justified in hating Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians.” doo-doo

Here you go again with your moral equivalence BS. If everything is a mental jelly, there´s no distinctions to make and, in particular, your crap about the ICJ, human-rights, ONGs etc it´s all a pack of LIES to advance your failed leftist agenda.

Of course, that´s the tactics: feign that “we´re all sinners” (in the past that was “marxist self-criticism”) but conveniently excuse your pseudo-progressive crowd. A true mediocre postmodernist dogmatist your are, completely indoctrinated and boring as hell.

Your mask isn´t working, doo-doo.

March 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm

SerJew

“Implying that Muslims are justified in their anti-Semitism because of Israel’s actions is treating them like automatons with no moral compass.” Juan

And it´s pure racism. The racism of lower expectations.

March 6, 2012 at 7:59 am

dubi stated:

“Well, use of the “Holocaust card” as a political cricket bat is well documented. On this site alone, I’ve been accused of Holocaust denial, in spite of being staunchly opposed to such denial. ”

YET dubi still claims that the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran never said he threatened to destroy Israel.

dubi, YOU LIE.

March 6, 2012 at 2:42 pm

SerJew

In fact, YOU used the nazi-card, accusing me of racism (the infantile term of abuse of your crowd of “progressivists”) because I dared point out the fact of Jewish *disproportionate* talent in many fields, including science, maths, physics and medicine, a fact that makes mediocres such as doo-doo foam hysterically. For you, talent and merit is anathema as it destroys your egalitarian fantasy.

Now, for someone that uses “Mein Kampf” to indict Zionists, whom you accuse of being guilty of anti-Semitism and hence the Holocaust, then we can quite correctly say that while you may not deny the Holocaust, you do blame the Jews for it. I´m not sure what is worse.

March 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm

pretzelberg

The “elite media and also of the bulk of scholarship” have “pandered to Israel in advancing their Zionist narrative”??

In which parallel universe?

March 7, 2012 at 4:04 am

A good example within scholarship was the Joan Peters hoax, “From Time Immemorial”. Before it was exposed as a hoax, it received breathless praise from particularly the American intellectual establishment. Reviews were written, endorsements came flowing in talking about how scholarly it was, and how it would change the way in which we viewed the conflict.

It was a similar story in the elite media in the US too. Of course, the book was exposed as a hoax, but it was instructive as to how the intellectual establishment worked.

March 6, 2012 at 6:41 am

http://cifwatch.com/2012/03/04/the-last-day-what-a-nuclear-attack-on-israel-might-look-like/comment-page-1/#comment-68790

Time to take a look at some classic CifWatch hypocrisy.

In the article above, Adam laments:

““Imagine if a commenter had suggested that President Obama is morally subhuman?””

And yet, here we have a CiFWatch regular saying:

“Just the genocidal ayatollahs, the pint sized president of the Islamic Republic of Iran ***ARE LESSER BEINGS***.” [emphasis mine]

Adam, please put your own house in order. If comments can be made on your site which refer to the leaders of a nation as not just “morally subhuman”, but actually “lesser beings”, can you really react with the mock outrage above?

March 6, 2012 at 8:01 am

dubi pointing her boney finger at CifWathc?!

Let the record show that dubitante has been proven wrong, yet, dubitante continues to lie regarding the genocidal threats by the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

March 6, 2012 at 8:30 am

I suspect that if Adam stops holding his own commenters to a lower standard that those at CiF, your days might be numbered.

For those interested, and clearly I don’t include our friend TGIAI, “marg bar” is not a threat.

“Death to” is a good literal translation of “marg bar”, but a poor idiomatic translation. A closer idiomatic translation is “Down with”. “Marg bar” is commonly used in popular politics in Iran, especially for chants or for putting to music.

I’m not sure where it originates, perhaps from “Marg bar Shah”. My favourite Persian political slogan is “marg bar sibzamini”, which means, literally, “death to potatoes”. Now, clearly this isn’t a threat of violence against potatoes. It’s a reference to Ahmadinejad’s attempt to buy votes with…potatoes.

You will also hear chants of “marg bar dictator” from Ahmadinejad’s opponents. It is an expression of disdain, frustration or disappointment. Not a threat of violence.

Unless of course you are TGIAI, in which case, HIDE!! The Islamic bogeyman is coming to get you!!!

March 6, 2012 at 8:47 am

dubi, Still shilling for the genocidal Islamic Republic of Iran.

Do you also believe that there are no homosexuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran as the president of the Islamic Republic told the audience at Columbia University?

Checkpoints at every airport in the world are necessary due to the Islamic bogeyman. Remember Pan Am 103 dubi?

March 6, 2012 at 8:52 am

“Do you also believe that there are no homosexuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran”

I fully suspect that Ahmadinejad is gay…or maybe just curious.

“Checkpoints at every airport in the world are necessary due to the Islamic bogeyman. Remember Pan Am 103 dubi?”

Remember Iran Air 655? Or is that different, because it was shot down by Christian militants?

March 6, 2012 at 9:08 am

March 6, 2012 at 12:19 pm

dubi, Remember the gay teens executed by the Islamic Republic, hung from construction cranes?

Remember KAL 007, shot down by the Soviets – or is that different because it was show down by commie atheist militants?

March 6, 2012 at 9:09 am

SerJew

“…, your days might be numbered.” doo-doo

Oh, doo-doo, is this a threat? Very scary.

In fact, you project your own BS on others, because you are the one that systematically and consistently lie, spin, say in one post the opposite of you claim in the next, disregard logic and evidence, adopt moral relativism for others and absolutistic dogmas for you and, last but not least, arrogantly hector people of the blog as if you were a kindegarden teacher and insult them, as you just did by comparing them to Hamas gangsters.

In sum, you are the intellectual delinquent here. So if you want to lift the blog standards the best and only thing you can do is LEAVE
IMMEDIATELY. B´Bye!

March 6, 2012 at 9:25 am

SerJew

“The Islamic bogeyman is coming to get you!!!” doo-doo

Yeah, bogus like 9/11, Madrid and London bombings and the endless murderous *ISLAMIC* acts of terror all over the world, particularly against muslims themselves.

I sincerely hope you´ll be shredded to little pieces by one of your heroic shahid´s bogey explosives.

SerJew

“Time to take a look at some classic CifWatch hypocrisy.” dood-doo

Oh, cut the crap. Time to a certified hypocrite and liar such as yourself to move elsewhere. You have ZERO credibility to ponfiticate about anything at all in this blog. Go back to your readings of “Mein Kampf”.

“Adam, please put your own house in order. ” yaba-daba-doodoo

This is your authoritarian inner commissar coming to the surface and projecting your moral and intellectual vices on others.

YOU go put your “house” in order, preferably in a mental institution.

March 6, 2012 at 7:17 am

Millfield

From the latest Guardian editorail “Israel and Iran: straining at the leash”
The first post with 110 recommends so far

“Iraandoost

6 March 2012 8:37AM

Israeli thoughtless, irrational and mad mad mad leaders are so desperate to start a war at any cost; one can only hope it will be one within themselves and themselves only so they can be replaced by moderate, rational and reasonable human beings”

Another CIF poster, in the mold of Berchmans, with a further 110 followers and counting, who believe that Israelis, and Jews by inference are subhumans, or not to be regarded as human beings at all

Now where have we heard this before – and where did it lead to ?

March 6, 2012 at 7:52 am

But calls for Israel and the US to start a war with Iran shouldn’t be interpreted as a call for a genocide? How does that work? Or is it only Jews which have to fear genocide?

March 6, 2012 at 8:03 am

Which country is threatening another country with total destruction?

Big Fat Hint for the morally and intellectually blind dubi.

March 6, 2012 at 8:10 am

Ariadne

There’s every evidence of Silverstein’s reject persisting in his folly but there is no hope in Hell or elsewhere of his becoming wise.

Misquoting Blake’s Proverbs of Hell.

March 7, 2012 at 1:57 am

itsikdewembley

Alawites are also being threatened nowadays, which is why Gentz said Israel will be preparing to absorb refugees from Syria and has requested to send aid to people who abuse her on a daily basis.

March 6, 2012 at 8:41 am

Andy Gill

Berchmans is far too cunning to post outright antisemitic comments on Cif, preferring to use sly innuendo.

Another of his ploys is to dismiss instances of antisemitism, for example he says the Hamas charter isn’t antisemtitc, and recently he denied that Ken Livinsgstone’s insulting comments to the Jewish press photographer were antisemitic. On the other hand, he’s extremely quick to accuse posters of Islamophobia.

It’s easy to see what Berchman’s game is. He’s on a mission to give anti-semites a space to operate in. He knows Cif’s real community standards (not the fake ones they claim to uphold) and he has learned to use them well.

March 6, 2012 at 8:48 am

Is he any different to a lot of posters here? Posters that know they can get away with posting offensive, vulgar drivel, in violation of CiFWatch’s own comment policy, but do so knowing the “real” CiFWatch policy.

Anyone who claims that the 1988 Hamas charter isn’t anti-Semitic is an anti-Semite. No discussion required. – If indeed he has, and I’ve no idea if that’s true – link anyone?

But from my perspective, he’s no different to many of the posters here, except that his prejudices lean in a different direction.

March 6, 2012 at 9:19 am

SerJew

“Posters that know they can get away with posting offensive, vulgar drivel, in violation of CiFWatch’s own comment policy, but do so knowing the “real” CiFWatch policy.”

Aww, now doo-doo is back to the victim mood. Listen, doc, you consistently posts lies, judeophobic propaganda and postmodernist BS.

You even managed to cite “Mein Kampf” and to accuse Zionism for anti-Semitism. That would have been enough to kick you out of any decent blog.

But, as a professional demopath, you exploit the current PC intellectual muddle and continue to post your crap. AND you dare complain?! That´s the moral inversion we´ve reach: anti-Semites now take offense for being called what they are AND claim victimhood when deservedly challenged and censored.

March 6, 2012 at 9:25 am

March 6, 2012 at 12:18 pm

dubi, From your “progressive” perspective, WW2 US/UK and national Socialist Germany were the same – they just leaned in different directions.

Who are we to judge (unless we sit on “the highest court in the world” BS)?

Is this a newspaper? Or is this a website devoted to criticising a newspaper?

That apple you’ve got sure looks like an orange.

March 7, 2012 at 4:25 am

You don’t see the inherent problem with allowing racist, vulgar drivel in comments at CiFWatch, while criticising racist, vulgar drivel in the comments at CiF?

March 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm

The reason this website is here is to criticize what a newspaper decides to peddle as information. When I come to this site, I expect to read about the bull being spread by the Guardian. When I (supposedly) got to the Guardian (or any other newspaper) I expect to read about the facts on the ground. I don’t expect that newspaper to misrepresent reality in order to titillate a mass audience who have penchants for degrading and abysmal, hatedriven agendas.

In other words, this site is credible in exposing the Guardians lack of credibility. There is a difference, and so while I don’t agree with some terminology found here, and I will get into it when I feel I must, it doesn’t bother nearly as much as when I read that drek in some mainstream fashion.

March 7, 2012 at 3:40 pm

“The reason this website is here is to criticize what a newspaper decides to peddle as information.”

CiFWatch spends a good deal of its time, including in the article above, criticising what happens in the comments BTL. If CiFWatch is going to take a stance on that, it is dripping with hypocrisy if they hold themselves to a lower standard.

“When I (supposedly) got to the Guardian (or any other newspaper) I expect to read about the facts on the ground.”

Well that’s just incredible naiveté on your part. Newspapers are not there to inform. Neither is this blog.

“I don’t expect that newspaper to misrepresent reality in order to titillate a mass audience who have penchants for degrading and abysmal, hatedriven agendas.”

Dear God man, if you want to be informed, the last place you should look are the elite media.

“In other words, this site is credible in exposing the Guardians lack of credibility.”

This site has less credibility than the Guardian, not least of all because it routinely posts things which are demonstrably false, but also because it criticises the Guardian for precisely the same faults that I see here every day.

March 6, 2012 at 8:57 am

SerJew

Classic doo-doo tactics. First, a statement of truth, but not without a little pseudo-skeptic quibble.

“Anyone who claims that the 1988 Hamas charter isn’t anti-Semitic is an anti-Semite. No discussion required. – If indeed he has, and I’ve no idea if that’s true – link anyone?”

Then, immediately his moral relatistic BS, that basically cancels the previous paragraph…

“But from my perspective, he’s no different to many of the posters here, except that his prejudices lean in a different direction.”

…essentially conflating a terrorist gangster hate organization to people in this blog. A lie and an insult to boot. All with this fake-objetivity stance.

No, doo-doo, your postmodernist BAVARDAGE WON´t stick. Try another tactic. Or find yourself a shrink.

March 6, 2012 at 9:04 am

“Anyone who claims that the 1988 Hamas charter isn’t anti-Semitic is an anti-Semite. No discussion required.”

So why does Der Groan continue to post his racist comments on CiF?

March 6, 2012 at 9:07 am

Probably the same reason that Adam let’s you continue to post the very same things he complains about at CiF. Double standards are everywhere.

March 6, 2012 at 9:09 am

GoonerEll

So worried about being correct and fair – aren’t you dubi. That’s why you call me a racist without any basis on another thread then run away.

Shameless.

March 6, 2012 at 9:11 am

SerJew

Again, it´s the classical postmodernist tactics. Just to create noise, derange the discussion and, later, to claim victimhood.

March 6, 2012 at 9:14 am

March 6, 2012 at 10:46 pm

“Double standards are everywhere.”

Particularly with “progressive” socialists and FAKE anti-war activists.

March 6, 2012 at 1:04 pm

vildechaye

Aside from all the other nonsense, when did a call for war become equivalent to a call for genocide. By that definition, every single war in the history of the world is a call for genocide. Talk about watering down the definition. Idiotic.

March 6, 2012 at 3:55 pm

pretzelberg

Another Berchmans classic just half an hour ago:

“[Lebanon] is not Gaza where you can sap the morale of the fighters by killing their their children.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/15020122

Pathetic.

benorr

Very simple, target Berchmans by endlessly pressing the report button till they either delete his psychopathic posts or d ban him………

March 7, 2012 at 11:08 am

Joseph

I posted on this site last week that Berchman accidentally outed himself as a Muslim (I also provided the quote), reading his most recent offerings (last two months) he is becoming much more obvious with his hatred for all things Jewish.

It seems that poor old Berchman the postman/ social worker etc has stopped even pretending to be a pacifist who is against all forms of violence, and instead has decided to just speak from his putrid heart.

March 7, 2012 at 11:46 am

“I posted on this site last week that Berchman accidentally outed himself as a Muslim”

Is there an implication that adherence to Islam is something to be ashamed of? Or that such adherence harms his credibility?

March 7, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Joseph

No why?, are you projecting your own insecurities about Islam onto my post which mentions that Berchman outed himself as a Muslim?

Please do enlarge why you framed your question in such a strange way?, it seems that you are similar to Berchman in accusing others of inferring things without any factual evidence to back up your bizarre ramblings.

March 7, 2012 at 3:28 pm

It was your use of the term “accidentally outed”, as if it was something that should have been kept a secret, and then offering proof to back it up.

Is his faith (or lack thereof) relevant to anything other than an ad hominem attack?

March 7, 2012 at 3:31 pm

If I said that someone had “outed themselves as a Jew”, it would have the ring of anti-Semitism about it. Perhaps you don’t think so.

March 8, 2012 at 2:21 am

Joseph

No it would not, especially if they had spent years claiming to be agnostic. Berchman’s body of work condemns him for the anti-Jewish idiot that he so clearly is.

Actually, why do you continue to defend his slanderous posts?, why do we not read anything from you condemning some of his more disgusting posts?.

March 8, 2012 at 3:50 am