Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Subtlety at CiF

Much of the antisemtism at the Guardian isn't very subtle. Yesterday, however, one of the CiFWatch team called my attention to this example: all the moderator did was to remove the link to MEMRI (which, by the way, is www.memri.org, and an important website it is). One little snip, one reduced chance that anyone will stumble across a resource the Guardian doesn't want people looking at.

www.memri.org. Visit them often. www.guardian.co.uk. Visit them less.


Barry Meislin said...

The Memri link was likely deleted because that website is deemed anti-Islamic.

And for the Guardian, that quintessential organ of obfuscation at its Orwellian best, telling unpleasant truths about Islam is anti-Islamic.

(They, too, really ought post an apposite quote by Orwell on their masthead.)

Anonymous said...

The Atlantic has quite a bit about Hiroshima and Torture. I heard once claimed that Islam also has a long going tradition of what's permissible and what's not
- are there any present extended pro and con discussions about for example the "use" of "human shields" going on anywhere - publicly - readable - comprehensible ? or is this "this fatwa, that fatwa" I stumble upon every now and then all that's in the public sphere? come to think of it can't remember one about "human shields"
- would CiF be the address to go to?

Anonymous said...

wanting to read a bit more about Mossad's chief I found an almost unreserved eulogy in Abu Dhabi
quite refreshing after all these super-concerned oh so sad European voices
- what are we after? appeasing our local Hamas-fans?
- what will the Guardian make of it?


Empress Trudy said...

I'm always a bit shocked that idiots would claim that the words used by Islamists themselves would be deemed 'anti Islamic' when presented in Memri. As far as I or anyone can tell, no one has ever been able to find fault with either the text of the actual words as being made up or false, nor with any of the translations into English. If the Guardian doesn't like that REALITY pointed out then I suggest the Guardian get another reality.

Barry Meislin said...

Ah, but then you must be one of those rational types.

(More or less.)

It's a question of intent. If it makes Islam look bad (and, especially, if it's publicized with the intent of making the wider public aware of certain, shall we say, trends, then it's de facto anti-Islamic.

There's a certain kind of logic to it---kind of like those deluded Soviet citizens who complained about life in the Soviet Union and were therefore committed to "lunatic asylums" because since the USSR was paradise, they simply had to be insane....

kai said...

Well done, Yaacov. I like your last line. And I like Memri, that's clear anyway. Go on, both of you.