Hate crime in Toulouse, & the Guardian Left’s callous disregard towards antisemitic ideology


In the Guardian’s 472 word editorial on Tuesday, France: republican ideals, published before the identity of the perpetrator was known, a few gnawing facts, evidence of simply unmistakable leftist intellectual ticks, stand out.

The word “Jew” is only used twice.

The word was used in the opening passage, regarding the Dreyfus Affair – a polemical device employed by the unnamed Guardian author (perhaps Seumas Milne?) to argue that the values of the French Republic are more on trial in the recent attacks than the individual perpetrator.

As he was held in prison on Devil’s Island, the only prayers that Alfred Dreyfus offered up were those to the president of the republic. Piers Paul Read points out in his new account of the most infamous miscarriage of French justice that the ideals that sustained the Jewish army officer falsely accused of espionage were those of republican France. Read quotes from one of the letters Dreyfus wrote from his Caribbean gulag to his wife Lucie: “However atrocious may have been the tortures inflicted on me … I have never forgotten that, far above men, far above their passions, far above their errors, is our country. It is she who will be my final judge.”

The other time the word “Jew” was used was in the following passage:

A similar sentiment is re-emerging in a France [is] stunned by the Toulouse shootings. And it will pour out on to Paris’s streets on Saturday when the French – Jews and Muslims and everyone else – will march in their thousands together. Their message stands repetition: the republic will come together in the face of such an assault on its minorities.

Note that the murder of four Jews outside a Jewish school is merely referred to as the Toulouse shootings.

The word “antisemitism” is never once written, not even when speculating on the possible motives of the brutal attack.

 It is dangerous to speculate on motives. They may have no connection with the 17th Parachute regiment of Montauban, three of whose members were filmed in 2008 making Nazi salutes. We simply do not know whether the shootings are connected to the anniversary of the end of the Algerian war, or whether France is on the brink of its own Oslo moment, when Anders Behring Breivik massacred 77 people at a Social Democrat summer camp last year.

Innocent Jews in Toulouse are targeted for no other conceivable reason other than their faith, and the Guardian simply can’t acknowledge that antisemitism is even a possible motive!

Guardian then pivots to its desired villain:

The first to say what was on everyone’s mind was not the Socialist challenger François Hollande but the centrist François Bayrou. He said the killings were the product of a sick society, with politicians who pointed the finger and inflamed passions. No prize for guessing whom he was talking about. Nicolas Sarkozy’s lurch to the right has included such claims as there being too many immigrants in France

France’s main concern, like Britain’s, is jobs. Its problem, like ours, is curbing the super-rich not immigrants

No, the murder of four innocent Jews is not “the product of a sick society.” An abstraction (or systemic oppression) can’t pull the trigger and murder innocents. Only a very particular individual, who possesses free will and moral agency, blinded by murderous racism, can engage in such sociopathic behavior.  

Such callous disregard for Jewish life – a pathos so severe that children are fair game – was the product of a very particular, and especially odious, brand of religious extremism.

Can morally sober adults truly deny that radical Islam’s antipathy towards Jews represents the complete antithesis of liberal values – an obstacle to the noble Western aspiration of building truly tolerant, multicultural societies?

Guardian Left political orientation is increasingly defined by this egregious, supremely dangerous, ideologically inspired moral blind spot.

A seven-year-old Jewish girl by the name of Miriam Monsonego wasn’t murdered by France, or Nicolas Sarkozy.

The man who cornered a no-doubt petrified little girl, grabbed her by the hair and fired a bullet at point-blank range through her brain was named Mohammed Merah. 

46 comments on “Hate crime in Toulouse, & the Guardian Left’s callous disregard towards antisemitic ideology

  1. This is how it all begins. The perpetrator is not named and then his actions are justified, excused or explain away. And Islam is never to blame for the barbaric crimes committed in its name.

  2. “The word “Jew” is only used twice.” Same goes for the BBC television news main 10p.m. show after the shooting dead of the murderer; only here the word “rabbi” was used once and “Jewish school” once.

    Moreover, on the BBC the murders of the Jews were reported after the murders of the paratroopers, implicitly suggesting that these murders of a Jewiish father and three children were of secondary importance, rather than that they occurred chronologically after the murders of the paratroopers.

  3. i find this to be very sick on the part of countrys like france and england and so on. i refuse to believe that no one did not see this coming. Ok. i mean there is Always writing on the wall or a Sign, always a sign. someone no matter who, knew about this and was going to happen. the countrys i said before have a very bad history of not thinking there are evil extremist out their trying hurt or kill Jews and Christians. in the the pass you see extremist yelling and screaming. then what happen. you see them on tv yelling screaming. then what happen. you hear them on the radio. then what happen. you read about them in the paper then (blank) what happens. so agian i refuse to believe that no one didn’t not see or heard this coming in france. the question is someone needs to ask where is it safe for Jews and Christians to live. can the UN just tell us already.

    • jersey bob, of course they saw it coming but denied the evidence before them.

      The same happens all over Europe. I am surprised that there hasn’t yet been an attack on a Jewish school in the UK, given that London is so welcoming to Islamists and so sympathetic to their human rights.

      The Islamic way is to sow discord (and I note that dubitante is below adding to that) and then to take advantage of the resulting mayhem to seize more power and demand more rights, threatening, like angry killer bees to cause harm to anyone who disagrees with them.

      One answer is not to let them. We should stand firm against any attempts to bleat that they are the victims when they patently are not and they perpetrate murder and outrage against others.

      Well done CiF Watch

  4. Th Guardian got a hammering on that thread.There were numerous posts there that made them look like absolute idiots,and the amount of recommendations those same posts received speak for themselves.

    As usual they deleted the posts that that made them look sillier than they usually are.

  5. There’s a certain perversity to CiFWatch’s coverage. Not that that in itself is surprising.

    “The word “Jew” is only used twice.”

    And the piece mentioned the word “Muslim” only once, odd, perhaps, given that 3 of his alleged victims were Muslim. But, as we would expect, this isn’t a concern for you.

    The contempt that Salafis have for other human beings isn’t limited to Jews, a self evident fact considering that Muslims, pro-Palestinian activists and Jews are considered fair game.

    When an angry mob of Jews rampages through a mall attacking Arabs solely for being Arabs, barely a murmur is heard. At this point, I’m only aware of Haaretz having covered it:

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hundreds-of-beitar-jerusalem-fans-beat-up-arab-workers-in-mall-no-arrests-1.420270

    No one is talking about the dangers of Jewish anti-Arabism in response to the attacks.

    Perhaps it suits the narrative of eternal victimhood, perhaps its something else. Perhaps just once it would be nice if the slaughter of any child, regardless of faith or skin colour could be covered in the same way as the slaughter of Jewish children is.

    Now the Saudi regime is the most brutal Islamist regime on Earth, and the home of the Wahhabism. A worthwhile campaign would be attempting to get Western support for this extremist regime removed.

    • Are you really denying that Islamist extremists reserve a special contempt for Jews, or that Merah targeted children for murder because they were Jews? No, Muslims don’t have a monopoly on hate, and Islam isn’t by nature a hateful religion (as I always reject such essentialist arguments about any group), but there is simply no question that the central address of modern antisemitism (based on polls I’ve cited constantly on these pages) is the Islamic/Arab world. Are you really debating this fact?

      • “Are you really denying that Islamist extremists reserve a special contempt for Jews”

        Jews are certainly one of the targets of the hate that spews forth from the Wahhabi/Salafi folks. As are women and apostates.

        “but there is simply no question that the central address of modern antisemitism (based on polls I’ve cited constantly on these pages) is the Islamic/Arab world”

        Your use of the term “central address” is concerning, but I agree that amongst Muslim Arabs, anti-Jewish sentiment is likely to be over-represented compared with a global sample. But then, of course, if we look at the victims of

        I wouldn’t feel comfortable telling the families of Merah’s Muslim victims that he had a special hatred of Jews. Nor am I at all comfortable with categorising his French victims by faith, to do so seems to fall into the same trap, viewing France’s minorities as adherents of a faith first, French second, reinforcing their “otherness”.

        • Sorry, the phone rang in the middle of that response and I clearly lost my train of thought in the penultimate paragraph. I was probably going to finish it thus…

          But then, of course, if we look at the victims of the crimes of “The Jewish State”, they are, predominantly, Muslim Arabs. Soon, I will be moving to another part of the world that has suffered at the hands of British imperialism and British crimes, and fully expect to experience at least some anti-British racism as a result. It’s not excusable, it’s faulty thinking, but it is at least understandable.

          • Please tell me if I’m misunderstanding you. But, regarding this passage you wrote:

            “But then, of course, if we look at the victims of the crimes of “The Jewish State”, they are, predominantly, Muslim Arabs. Soon, I will be moving to another part of the world that has suffered at the hands of British imperialism and British crimes, and fully expect to experience at least some anti-British racism as a result. It’s not excusable, it’s faulty thinking, but it is at least understandable.”

            Are you suggesting that Muslim hostility towards Jews is understandable? Further, you do realize, don’t you, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims killed in the world (in political violence or war) are killed by fellow Muslims, right? If you’d like I’d be happy to provide stats.

            • Most forms of racism are understandable in the sense that they are not born in a vacuum. Anti-Jewish racism in Muslim Arabs is a product of their religion, but also of their experiences at the hands of the Jewish state.

              All racism is a product of faulty thinking. Anti-Arab racism in Israel is understandable – a series of experiences followed by faulty thinking, over-generalisation and fear/anger. The same applies to anti-Jewish racism in Muslim Arabs. Don’t confuse my understanding of where it comes from with my acceptance of it.

              People aren’t born racist. They learn to be racist. You have to understand the mechanisms to be able to combat it. Sometimes they learn it via osmosis. Sometimes they are indoctrinated by their leaders and teachers. Sometimes they arrive at their racism by warped thought processes.

              If you don’t try to understand the mechanisms that lead to racism, how to you hope to combat it?

              • “If you don’t try to understand the mechanisms that lead to racism, how to you hope to combat it?”

                Jews having understood the “mechanism” of racism for centuries, know full well that trying to understand it ” using your applied logic does not arrive at a solution of combatting it, but gives it credibility and acceptance.

                I have been looking at the stats regarding Jewish populations on Wikipedia. Afghanistan 1, Algeria 100 Bahrain 40 Bangladesh 175 Egypt 100. Iraq 100.Lebanon 100.Libya 0.Syria 100 Saudi Arabia 0..

                When it comes to Jews in the Islamic states, the disappearance of Jews is so emphatically clear. When it comes to Jews, something quite unique takes over to other forms of racism.It is extremely deadly.

                I am not implying that Muslims are racist by being Muslim

                orthat they are born that way, but there is a profound failure in those societies to deal with it and it is not because of Gaza, The latest excuse.

                • I agree. Although I think Iraq is down to a single digit in its Jewish population.

                  Racism is tolerated and often encouraged in many of the Arab countries, and that represents a reprehensible societal failure. And I would much rather be an Arab living in Israel than a Jew living in Iraq.

              • “Anti-Jewish racism in Muslim Arabs is a product of their religion, but also of their experiences at the hands of the Jewish state.” says the Tim.

                And the ‘anti-Jewish racism’ that existed prior to the modern era was a clairvoyant expectation of what Moslem Arabs would experience in the future at the hands of the Jewish state.

                All grows clear to me.

              • “Anti-Jewish racism in Muslim Arabs is a product of their religion, but also of their experiences at the hands of the Jewish state.”

                What the Muslims’ hands do, the mouths of their Marxist allies justify. It’s like clockwork.

          • So apparently it’s “understandable” that anti-British racism can be found in parts of the world that have “suffered at the hands of British imperialism and British crimes”. Tell me, what has been suffered at the hands of Israeli imperialism and Israeli crimes in France to make Merah’s hatred of Jews “understandable” or in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Saudi Arabia etc… where Jew-hatred is so endemic and institutionalised.

            And Israel is not “The Jewish State”. It is the Jewish State. No need for parentheses. You may wish it was otherwise, but that’s a fact of life you will just have to get used to.

            Finally, it is my understanding that Merah targetted the soldiers in revenge for French participation in UN operations in Afghanistan. Their key characteristic was that they were soldiers, not that they were Muslims. “You kill my brothers, I kill you” he is said to have told one of them before he shot him. It seems likely (though I may be proven wrong in the fullness of time and I don’t want to jump to conclusions) that it is either coincidence that the soldiers he shot were Muslims (maybe Muslims make up a large part of the French army in that area – I don’t know, just guessing), or he deliberately attacked them because he saw them as traitors to his warped idea of Islam. You could say (though I would vehemently disagree) that this is “understandable”.

            That is hardly equivalent in any way to what was a clear targetting of small Jewish children for the simple fact that they were Jewish, and if you can’t perceive that difference then there is little hope for you.

            • When I say it is understandable, I mean I can follow and understand the process which leads people to hold those views. I don’t intend to imply sympathy for those views. I have none.

              I understand 19th century British anti-Semitism, it was born of xenophobia. I understand Nazi anti-Semitism, it was based on warped racial theories. I don’t have any sympathy for the views though.

              “And Israel is not “The Jewish State”. It is the Jewish State. No need for parentheses. You may wish it was otherwise, but that’s a fact of life you will just have to get used to.”

              My use of quotation marks was meant only to convey that although the GoI self identifies as “The Jewish State”, it is not widely recognised as such. In fact, even the US hasn’t formally recognised it as such, with Truman explicitly declining to offer such recognition. It is formally recognised as the State of Israel.

          • But then, of course, if we look at the victims of the crimes of “The Jewish State”, they are, predominantly, Muslim Arabs.

            So what?
            a) The perpetrator has no connection to Palestinians.
            b) Those he murdered had nothing to do with any crimes of the Israeli govt.

            It’s not excusable, it’s faulty thinking, but it is at least understandable.

            You’re saying this in indirect reference to Toulouse.
            Murdering little children is not just “faulty thinking”, FFS.

            If the perpetrator was a Palestinian whose family had been killed in an Israeli air raid and who then murdered an off-duty IDF soldier in France – that, perhaps, would be “understandable”.

            But not this sick shit.

            • “So what?
              a) The perpetrator has no connection to Palestinians.”

              We were discussing Muslim Arab anti-Semitism. Not Merah.

              “b) Those he murdered had nothing to do with any crimes of the Israeli govt.”

              We were discussing Muslim Arab anti-Semitism. Not Merah.

              “You’re saying this in indirect reference to Toulouse.
              Murdering little children is not just “faulty thinking”, FFS.”

              Never claimed it was, FFS. Anyone who could kill a child is a murderous psychopath, regardless of the colour of their skin, their faith, or whether they are wearing a military uniform.

              If you’re going to interject, at least try to keep up.

          • It is not just the experience of the “victims of the Jewish state”, but propagandized accounts of that experience, that generate antisemitism in the Muslim/Arab world, and increasingly in Europe.Most Arabs have never encountered a Jew, let alone an Israeli, yet the Protocols are best sellers, the news is filled with Palestine, and lies about events there. The battle of Jenin, in which, according to a UN investigation, some 50 Palestinian combatants died, becomes the Jenin massacre, in which 500 Palestinian civilian were supposedly slaughtered. Lie piles on lie, and hatred grows. Egypt receives every inch of the Sinai back, and the song “I Hate Israel” is a popular hit. Egypt has a revolution, and lie upon lie against the Jews and Israel is still current. Endemic Nasserism disappears from Egyptian history, and Mubarak is portrayed as a dictator foisted on Egypt by “the Jews.”

            Meanwhile, one would expect Jews to have mounted countless revenge attacks on Germany and Germans, based on the idea that hatred is simply the product of treatment at the hand of “the other.” But no. Experience is filtered through culture, and contemporary Arab political culture is geared toward projecting all faults onto the non-Muslim world, especially the Jews.

        • Dubitante, for once I have some sympathy with what you are saying, but I suppose the difference is that Merah’s Muslim victims were targetted for what they did – the crime of joining the French army, as opposed to what they were – the crime of their very existence – being Jews. That leaves the possibility of redemption for the former, but not for the latter, and shows that in reality there is little difference between the eliminationist anti-Semitism of Merah’s ideology and that of the Nazis.

    • That incident of the Beitar mob attacking Arabs in Jerusalem is disgusting and abhorrent and frankly shocking. I won’t defend that sort of behaviour in any way, and I hope nobody on this thread will either.

      Thank you for bringing it to my (our) attention.

      From the report (my only source of information on this) I find it shocking that the police won’t act unless a “complaint” is made, and the football club’s disinterest is equally disgraceful, but at least I see hope in the attitude of the (apparently) Jewish shop-keepers and managers of the mall and their bravery in refusing to abet the mob. It is clear from that (and from my experience of Israel and Israelis) that the stench of racist anti-Arab sentiment, which clearly does exist in parts of Israeli society, is not by any means universal or even dominant, and I would like to point out that it is NOT government-sponsored or approved, in the way that anti-Jewish sentiment and actions are in many Arab countries.

      Finally, I completely agree with you about Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you would like to set up a Saudiwatch site dedicated to exposing the truth about the Saudi regime and to pressurising the media to do the same. I for one would whole-heartedly support your efforts.

      Shame you had to go and ruin it with your talk of “eternal victimhood”. If any party in the Middle East has sought that mantle, it is the Palestinians, who are apparently still refugees after all these years, and whose problems are never, never self-inflicted nor perpetrated by their Muslim brethren or so-called “leaders”, but always the fault of Israel and America.

      • “Finally, I completely agree with you about Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you would like to set up a Saudiwatch site dedicated to exposing the truth about the Saudi regime and to pressurising the media to do the same. I for one would whole-heartedly support your efforts.”

        Perhaps some common ground :)

        “Shame you had to go and ruin it with your talk of “eternal victimhood”.”

        It wasn’t supposed to be a dig. Zionist and Palestinian narratives both feature a “competition of the victims”.

        • I’m not afraid to agree with someone when they say something true, even when I their other views make my skin crawl.

        • Dubi, you are right here to some degree.

          But look at the Sepharadis in Israel.
          Victims they are.
          Both by their Jewish brothers and by the arab countries that kicked them out after robbing them of their posessions and their heritege.

          But do they whine half as much as the Palestinians do?

          They get over it and claw their way up building new bridges and new future.

          The biggest question is will the Arab states allow the Palestinian to build a future on their soil should they wish to do so.

          The answer is no.

        • A smiley face doesn’t lessen the the offence you cause dubitante in almost everything you write here.

          Where exactly is the common ground, at every level, between you and GoonerEll, while you seek to excuse or minimise Islamist murder of Jews because they are Jews?

      • gooner, dubitante is afflicted of a blood and bone antipathy towards Jews and towards Israel because it is a Jewish state. That being the case s/he cannot write for long without this emerging. It’s equivalent to a cognitive/emotional tic.

    • You mean that Salafis have contempt for you too dubitante?

      And because of that, because they are hate-filled specimens who perpetrate death and destruction against everyone, including people like you and Muslims, Jews shouldn’t make such a fuss?

      Do you even know what Salafism is, and that Salafis make the knuckle draggers of Hamas look like pussy cats?

      Evidently not

      I wouldn’t fancy your chances with a Salafi, no matter how anti-Israel you may be.

      I note you quote from Ha’aretz, which is hardly disinterested.

      It’s high time that Jews became as angry as Arabs/Muslims. Enough has been perpetrated against them down the centuries for them to have the right to be so, but instead they concentrate upon improving themselves and their lives and contributing to the societies in which they live instead of sponging from them. They recognise that the world doesn’t owe them a living and even if it did it would default on the debt, so they have built lives for themselves.

      As for “eternal victimhood” (my God what a colossal cheek you have) Jews haven’t sat in the mess of their own making for centuries, expecting others to clean it up and holding out the ever-present begging bowl to people like you.

      • “You mean that Salafis have contempt for you too dubitante?”

        I sincerely hope so.

        “Do you even know what Salafism is, and that Salafis make the knuckle draggers of Hamas look like pussy cats?”

        I know exactly what it is. Do you? Primitive and murderous are two of the kinder words I could use to describe it.

        “I note you quote from Ha’aretz, which is hardly disinterested.”

        It was, at the time I posted, the only newspaper that thought it worth mentioning that a couple of hundred angry Jews went on the rampage attacking Arabs because they were Arabs. And even then, it only made the sports page.

        At the time, I didn’t see a single mention in any of the other big Israeli outlets. Quite telling.

  6. A simple look at the way in which Arabs in Dubai and Bahrain treat the Pakistanis living among them tells you how much Arab gulf countries are “racist and proud of it”.

    If you look for a place where slaves are still being kept and the state is happy to carry this on go to the Gulf states.

    The Arab side…

  7. Why do so many commentators on this site allow the poster “dubitante” to steer the conversation away from the article to other areas which have absolutely nothing to do with the terrible lack of judgement that the Guardian displayed in its editorial?

    Personally I believe this editorial should never have been written before all the facts were known, this is a huge own goal for the Guardian which should have resulted in the editorial being removed and a fresh editorial condemning the murder of innocent people by a racist religious fanatic should be written.

    I cannot agree with the thrust of the editorial in which it clearly puts the blame on the atrocity on the French state and fingers right wing terrorists as the most likely perpetrators of this awful crime.

    Then to add insult to injury the Guardian the following day commissioned
    Nabila Ramdani to write another one of her risible articles in which she also attempts to put the blame for the actions of Mohammed Mera at the feet of the French state, one of her claims left me absolutely speechless:

    “Like so many others, they (the Jewish citizens of France) will view the serial killer as nothing more than a “monster”.

    This is a ridiculous statement to make, clearly the fact that Mohammed Merah is a Muslim and the way in which he executed the young Jewish children shows that his barbaric actions will reflect poorly on the religion he claimed to follow.

    No doubt the Guardian will be publishing additional stories claiming that the French intelligence services are guilty of failing to stop this murderous rampage, I also expect the Guardian to deflect from its abysmal editorial from yesterday with more attempts to spin the story into one of a serial killer who’s actions had nothing to do with his hatred of Jews.

    Sometimes I despair of the stance taken by the Guardian and this is one of those moments.

    • “Why do so many commentators on this site allow the poster “dubitante” to steer the conversation away from the article to other areas which have absolutely nothing to do with the terrible lack of judgement that the Guardian displayed in its editorial?”

      My original post was related to the editorial, and to how coverage at the Guardian and elsewhere compares to coverage of other racist crimes in the media.

      Conversations tend to wander. But I agree with your post, it was a lame editorial.

      ““Like so many others, they (the Jewish citizens of France) will view the serial killer as nothing more than a “monster”.”

      That’s not the danger. The danger is he is viewed as nothing more than a Muslim.

      • dubitante, I think you are tolerated here because you provide such sport. And you could have an argument with your own shadow and lose.

        Being oppositional for the sake of it is a severe personality defect.

        You should get help.

  8. This coverage by the Guardian reaches a new low.

    They were desperate; quite literally desperate, to find that the killer was a right wing extremist. Now that his true identity is revealed they are making mealy mouthed platitudes about not blaming the muslim community.

    Well I am sorry but the muslim community has to take a lot of the blame.
    These guys didn’t come out of nowhere and could not function without support, or at least tacit acceptance.

    We have now had more than a decade of bullying threats and intimidation from islamist terrorists and the muslim community has maintained a deafening silence at best. At worst it has taken the unseemly position of victim; warning of non-existant “backlashes” while the bodies are still warm.

    The muslim community needs to put its house in order and isolate these nutters without delay. If it fails to do so, There can only be one conclusion to draw.

    As for the Guardian; this is a sad end for the newspaper that was graced by the likes of James Cameron. It is now little more than a middle class equivalent of the Daily Mail focused upon sexual identity issues, lifestyle and set positions that lead to the sort of rubbish we haqve just seen over the murders in Toulouse.

    It simply is not worth reading any more

    • “We have now had more than a decade of bullying threats and intimidation from islamist terrorists and the muslim community has maintained a deafening silence at best.”

      That’s only true if you accept the narratives as laid out in the elite media. Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of the French Muslim Council condemned the attacks, and laid out how they violate the principles of Islam. Barely a mention.

      Palestinian leaders also spoke out against the killings, calling upon these murderers to stop using Palestinians as an excuse for their crimes. Barely a mention.

      Yesterday, perhaps the most truthful sentence ever printed in a newspaper appeared unnoticed in the FT:

      “Behind their journalistic missions, most news organisations have always been commercial operations that sell audiences to advertisers.”

      Scary Islamic bogeyman – great for selling copy. Sensible Muslims condemning such atrocities – not really marketable. Fear and hatred means good audiences, it’s that simple.

      Don’t rely on these organisations for a balanced world view.

      • Ooh, goodie. But what did this condemning Muslim actually do?

        Why are there so few like him, and if there are more, why do we not hear from them? Are they all terrified or thick or what?

        You seem to be arguing that the Guardian prints lies in order to sell copy, something intelligent people have realised for a long time in the lies it prints about Israel.

        And would you know a balanced view if you read one? You know so little about Islam’s mission in the world that I doubt it very much.

        • “Why are there so few like him, and if there are more, why do we not hear from them? Are they all terrified or thick or what?”

          You rely on the elite media to tell you how many there are, then you complain? It’s too daft a position to waste time criticising.

          • And so, of course, do you when you spout your derivative and woefully misguided guff about Israel and Zionism.

            Do you count the Guardian among the so-called “elite” media? Why/why not?

            The fact is that nowhere do we see Muslims living in the West taking to the streets in enough numbers on “Not in my Name!” marches whenever one of their crazed co-religionists kills Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists or even fellow Muslims, particularly children. It does NOT happen does it?

            You still don’t seem to have a clue as to why that might be. I have more than a fair idea, but I’ll wait to see the mess you make excusing them before I offer an explanation.

            If enough Muslims in the UK and Europe and America had the courage to do that then how could the “elite media” not report it?

            The fact is, most Muslims in the West are either too cowardly, or too double-bound (look it up), or there simply aren’t enough of them to register on the media’s radar because most of them don’t care sufficiently that people are slaughtering Jews and non-Muslims in their name.

            If you know differently then post the link here.

          • You haven’t answered my question have you dubitante?

            You appear to speak with such authority that I thought you would know how many there are.

            Surely you are not asking me to take the word of such a one as you about this? It’s not April Fool’s Day yet.

        • I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the Guardian does indeed print lies.

          Or rather spins stories to fit a pre-existing standpoint, which amounts to the same thing.

  9. I’ve never seen the Guardian get such a kicking from the commenters, even over the grotesque Deborah Orr article.

    I hope this is the start of a trend that will see more sane commenters frequenting Cif, and challenging the Guardian’s appeasement of Islamofascism and their relentless demonization of Israel.

    • “I hope this is the start of a trend that will see more sane commenters frequenting Cif, and challenging the Guardian’s appeasement of Islamofascism and their relentless demonization of Israel”.

      I wouldn’t count on it if I were you.

  10. Pingback: Eindtijd » Blog Archive » Toulouse en de antisemitische trekjes van The Guardian

  11. The most telling comments here are those by HairShirt about the invisibillty of the supposed moderate majority of Muslims standing up and being counted in the face of extremism. Compare and contrast the large number of Jews – many of them ‘celebrities’ vocally comdemning the unacceptable face of Israeli policies and behavour. We may not agree with them but they are there – and we who by and large feel Israel gets the raw end of the deal usually recognise there is another side to answer for. Many – like myself – support the rights of the Palestinians to their own state – just not at the cost of Israel’s safe ongoing existence. But the occasional Muslim, Arab, Palestinian who voices sympathy with the Israeli viewpoint is as rare as proverbial ‘hens’ teeth’. Worse still – so often when the spokespersons of the Muslim community condemn an act of violence or hatred by their extremists in this country the condemnation is accompanied by a reservation pointing out that the act had roots in anger at British ‘foreign policy’ – for which (read the code) substitute the UK’s acceptance and occassional support for the ‘Zionist Entity’. Sadly – the failure to condemn without reservation borders on complicity. In the UK if we don’t like our government’s foreign policy we vote for someone else.

Comments are closed.