Saladin1970: Nut Job
This is a guest post by Lucy Lips’s Sister
Readers of this forum may have noticed the front page of The Sun on Wednesday dealing with the
“hate-filled Islamic extremists [who] are drawing up a ‘hit list’ of Britain’s leading Jews.”
Specifically mentioned by The Sun, was a poster by the username of Saladin1970 who had created a thread on the Ummah Forum at the end of last year, where he believed
“that the time is right to compile a list of british people who support Israel.”
Saladin1970 immediately got to work and provided a link to the Jewish Chronicle list of the 100 people who “wield the greatest influence on British Jewry.” He was disappointed that he had not yet obtained their addresses or telephone numbers. He also got quite excited to find a web site that had the names of representatives of the Union of Jewish Students listed. With a clear confusion as to what is Zionist and what is Jewish, he decided that the UK Jewish Film Festival should be targeted and boycotted. He linked to the web site of the Labour MP, Louise Ellman, who he determined a “vile woman”; published the email address and a contact telephone number of David Hirsh who runs the Engage web site which tackles antisemitism; published the names of prominent Jewish businessmen and linked to a blatantly antisemitic web site headlined “Blair’s Jewish Paymasters” that itself published the names of numerous prominent British Jews.
This was not the only thread that Saladin1970 has recently published on the Ummah Forum. An examination of some others show that in the last few days he has called for the Board of Deputies of British Jews to be removed from the Interfaith Network for the United Kingdom. This network aims to “create good inter faith relations.”
Readers of this forum may also not be surprised that Saladin1970, writing as Saladin1970.5, is also active on the MPACuk forum. Given his recent press publicity, and knowing that some people monitor that particular forum, he wanted to ensure that
“moderators … check through any posts with the links to the jewish top 100 and make sure there are no illegal threats.”
This led a different contributor to point out that there had been a thread
“saying that all Jews are murderous coniving scum and should be driven into the sea,”
but it had been deleted. Saladin1970.5 confirmed that it had been retracted and added
“Calling for for the fluffy zionist murderers to be driven into the sea. was wrong. they should all be exiled to siberia.”
Going further than those who simply want to boycott Israeli universities, and noting that some Israeli academics will be lecturing at SOAS , Saladin 1970.5 stated categorically:
i fully believe that there should be no normalcy with any organization that supports israel such as the Jewish board of directors, and that there should be grass root activity to prevent Jewish academics coming to Britian. [Emphasis added.]
Getting on his high horse, and full of confidence, he adds in a later contribution:
I am going to do one simple thing, and post the link to the 100 most active zionists in Britain, and then muslims can judge for themselves if it is beneficial to work towards negating, their influence using the organizations and manpower at our disposal and then they can imagine a britain without these wormtongues whispering in the ears of politicians etc
On New Years Day, Saladin1970.5 informed readers of the MPACuk forum of his dream:
Imagine if there where no zionists in UK and US
Imagine with a wave of your wand, all zionists in the UK and US dissappeared, and in their place where those sympathetic to palestine.
so there would be no Labour friends of Israel, no Conservative friends of Israel.
No Jewish learning Centre promoting education and student transfer in Hendon.
No David Hirsh at Goldsmiths University overturning academic boycot.
No dodgy zionist funders of Labour, no Board of Deputies. No jewish david milband, etc
He elaborates his dream:
Maybe the muslims at goldsmith will mount a campaign to have the pro zionist David Hursh removed, so that he will not be in a position to reverse the academic boycott of Israel….
Maybe the muslim lawyers association will mount a campaign to have the writer on Harrys blog who works for a top law firm, removed from his job, for propogating extremist views.
He proudly informed his readers,
“We are all palestinan, and we are all hamas.”
Saladin1970 has form stretching back at least a few years of this kind of thing. In 2006 he spent three days vandalising the on-line encyclopaedia, Wikipedia.
He deemed it “an important factor” to ensure that users of this source were aware in the first few words of the entry for the mass-murdering doctor Harold Shipman , that – so he claimed – he had been born Jewish. His cited evidence for this was that Shipman is a Jewish name and that Abu Hamza, someone who a few months earlier had been jailed for seven years for “inciting murder and stirring up racial hatred,” said so. So important did Saladin1970 deem this fact that despite being told that it was not relevant information, he reverted the information on six separate occasions after it had been deleted.
In this three day spell as a Wikipedia editor, he also found the time to edit the entry for 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, adding information to suggest that Israel had advance knowledge of the terrorist atrocities. He was , quite prolific in promoting Alan Hart’s self-published and notorious, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. After three days, Wikipedia finally had enough of his nonsense and the arbitrators ultimately banned him.
In February 2006, he was on form at the MPACuk forum writing about the Board of Deputies of British Jews: a
“shadowy zionist organisation, and all the other shadowy organisations that would harm britian and its interests for the zionist state.”
Clearly believing the notorious forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, he comments that the Board of Deputies,
“list a few people, but it is the shadowy tenticales they spread throughout the british political system in order to further the cause of political Zionism.”
One has good reason to believe that Saladin1970 was writing as Saladin70 at the Delphi Forums in 2005. It was on this forum where he originally came to my attention and here where Saladin70 decided to publish “jewish titbits from the Talmud,” such as, according to him,
“Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.”
There was also his thread on “Holocust and jewish pornography.” Naturally, he had a thread on “talmud and ritual murder.” It was in this thread that Saladin70 informed readers that Jews,
“still practice ritual murder and the drinking of human blood (especially Christian blood).”
Those of his readers that are anti-Zionist but not antisemitic, will no doubt be interested in his thread on “Jewish child molesters” which he wonders has anything to do with
“the talmud edict about molesting children.”
Or, one can read his thread where he told his readers, “Jews are like leeches.”
So interested was Saladin70 in Jewish matters, that he created a Jewish Discussion Board where one could “discuss jews against zionism and jewish contribution around the world.” “no, jew bashing allowed,” he insisted, “this is a forum for jews and gentiles to discuss the evil that is Zionism.”
In keeping with this lofty aim, he started a thread entitled Holohoax, where he regurgitated and promoted 1992 Holocaust Denial material from David Cole. When another contributor to the forum pointed out to him that in 1998 Cole had retracted and apologised for his earlier views, Saladin70 responded,
“Thank you very much for showing how the zionists have frightened Cole into silence, it is really awful how much zionists supress the truth, and threaten anyone who questions their lies.”
There is only one thing for it. He needs a bowl of chicken soup.
Comments
| 9 January 2009, 3:53 pm |
we are all jewish now
| 9 January 2009, 3:54 pm |
Is it you Bob?
| 9 January 2009, 3:55 pm |
This is like the most important piece of news in the world! How some nutjob has been writing crap on internet forums! Well knock me down with a feather! Hide your women! etc etc.
| 9 January 2009, 3:56 pm |
OliverP
9 January 2009, 3:53 pm
“Sounds like he’s a journalist with The Guardian”
Nah, I know who it is. Has noone else noticed that TheIriot and Saladin1970 are never posting comments anywhere at the same time?
Oh…and don’t feed the troll/s.
MattG
| 9 January 2009, 3:59 pm |
Hi Sunny
Some of the people on Saladin1970s list have received death threats.
The CST has received 50 reports in the last couple of weeks of racist incidents against Jews, including assaults and arson.
Can I ask you please to fuck off?
Thank you.
| 9 January 2009, 3:59 pm |
Fuck off Bob.
No, don’t fuck off – it is interesting to know what scum like you think.
| 9 January 2009, 3:59 pm |
“the notorious forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”
Pet Peave: The Protocols is a hoax, not a forgery.
Also, it appears Sunny himself has officially become “a nutjob writing crap on internet forums.” Cool.
| 9 January 2009, 4:00 pm |
Pointing out the absurdity and witless buffoonery of anti semites is never anything but a worthwhile activity, and the front page of the Sun aint that obscure Bob.
| 9 January 2009, 4:01 pm |
Sunny
I think this nutjob speaks for quite a few British Muslims at the moment. Don’t you?
I think that is the point of the post.
In fact, at most of the forums he/she posts, this is pretty standard fare.
Sadly, ‘Nutjobs’ like this one are not all on forums at the moment.
Many of them are walking around London and other cities looking for a few jews to abuse and attack.
Some people pretend this isn’t happening. Some people will try to excuse it. But if you have a problem with this blog reporting it…..then you really are a moron.
MattG
| 9 January 2009, 4:10 pm |
I bet Sunny wouldn’t be taking it lightly if he got death threats from anti-Sikh web nutjobs who were angry about something Sikhs had done in India.
Do you care to review your last comment on this issue Sunny ?
| 9 January 2009, 4:12 pm |
Sunny apparently only thinks in terms of “brown people”. Jews aren’t brown enough for him.
| 9 January 2009, 4:28 pm |
I’ve never read a wordier version of the simple sentence “fuckwits exist”
| 9 January 2009, 4:29 pm |
So, does this saladin arsehole have a real identity of his own? Someone must know who he is.
As for Sunny – I always thought that, while often wrong, he was fairly agreeable. But of late, and with the comment above, he’s revealed himself to be quite the twat. Which is a shame really.
| 9 January 2009, 4:36 pm |
Have to agree with Paul – is that really Sunny? Surely he wouldn’t be so complacent about racists?
| 9 January 2009, 4:45 pm |
If it’s a fake sunny, surely the real sonny would object.
| 9 January 2009, 4:46 pm |
Have to agree with Paul – is that really Sunny? Surely he wouldn’t be so complacent about racists?
Given how he is pretty much one of the biggest racists out there, that’s a redundant question.
I refer to my summing up of Hundal in October 2007:
“And given how often (just about every single post) it is you who plays the race card, can we safely assume that it is you who are the race-obsessed saddo here? The plain facts of the matter are, Sunny, that without your self-aggrandising and self-consuming obsession with “race”, you would be nothing. You’re incapable of seeing anything except through the prism of skin colour. You’re just another professional race-baiter like Lee Jasper or Nick Griffin. And you’re as racist as both of them.”
| 9 January 2009, 4:47 pm |
The only thing more disappointing than knowing anti-Semites like Saladin1970 exist, is the whitewashing they get from the liberal left crowd.
Incidently I wonder if Saladin1970 knows that his more famous namesake from history was the chap who allowed Jews back into Jerusalem after they had been previously evicted. I doubt it!
| 9 January 2009, 4:51 pm |
Poor response from Mr.T. And I thought you and Sunny were friends?
Anti-semitic nutjob posts personal info, which other nut jobs use to make death threats.
Shock as the internet facilitates racists to air their opinions, comment on blogs, and encourage and facilitate reprehensible, illegal activities.
More shock as commentators on HP say “this is what all Muslims think, bloody muslims” and indulge in generally anti-progressive rhetoric.
We know that there is a serious increase in anti-semitism, that it is seemingly emanating from within Muslim religio-political groups and is possibly being under-reported. (The caveats indicate that I have seen little evidence, not that I don’t neccessarily share that view too)
The real question is what should the progressive left be doing about it?
| 9 January 2009, 4:55 pm |
The real question is what should the progressive left be doing about it?
well apparently you are “the only one left” so do tell us what you’re up to.
| 9 January 2009, 4:56 pm |
“…indulge in generally anti-progressive rhetoric.”
Tit.
| 9 January 2009, 4:57 pm |
Should the “progressive left” be doing something different from the rest of us?
| 9 January 2009, 5:01 pm |
The real question is what should the progressive left be doing about it?
One thing they shouldn’t be doing is marching in solidarity with theocratic Hamas-supporting creeps. Even if it means lessening the ‘impact’ of their protests, they should march on a different day.
| 9 January 2009, 5:01 pm |
If incitement to murder is a crime, and I’m quite asure it is, Saladin 1970’s real identity can be obtained and the rancid little shit punished.
And as for Hundal? Imagine his reaction if some racist skinhead drew up a list of prominant Sikhs to kill and parused different british-based internet forums encouraging people to have a go at Sikhs.
I’ve always known he was a shallow and superficial twat and his insouciant comment above certainly proves it.
| 9 January 2009, 5:04 pm |
As far as I can see, the response to anti-semitism on parts of the progressive left has been:
- to “contextualise” it
- to play it down
- to claim that it is an attempt by Jews to disguise their own crimes
- to refuse to recognise it at all, unless it is expressed in a German accent by a man with a toothbrush moustache.
- to tut-tut about it but claim that it is all pretty trivial compared to the Heroic Struggle of Hamas
- to deny the possibility that any Muslim could possibly be involved in it
- to remind people that the Jews have learned how to become Nazis from the Holocaust.
This isn’t just an impression. This is precisely what is happening.
See if you can find anything on Unite Against Fascism about Islamists whipping up hatred against Jews, or attacks on Jews.
Go on.
| 9 January 2009, 5:06 pm |
There will always be different responses to a situation depending on your political persuasion. So no, there probably isn’t response but some of the suggestions would be unacceptable to activists on the left , and some to those on the right.
Despite many of the commentators, HP is a blog of the left.
| 9 January 2009, 5:12 pm |
More shock as commentators on HP say “this is what all Muslims think, bloody muslims” and indulge in generally anti-progressive rhetoric.
Were you any kind of regular reader of HP, you’d know that is NOT what HP commenters say.
People take the time ( and make the effort) to distinguish between ordinary muslims and Islamist radicals obsessed with Jews and Israel and hell-bent on mass murder.
The real question is what should the progressive left be doing about it?
Progressives should be making the effort to distinguish radical islamists from moderate Muslims instead of marching in solidarity with proponents of a theocratic ideology that promotes a hate-filled manichean view of all of humanity, a view that is at odds with everything progressivism represents.
Instead they spend all their time indulging their resentiments.
| 9 January 2009, 5:15 pm |
“No David Hirsh at Goldsmiths University overturning academic boycot.”
Well, banning David Hirsh from commenting on the UCU activist list, his own union has done its little bit to help.
| 9 January 2009, 5:20 pm |
Sunny
I am Jewish and was assaulted in Trafalgar Square last Saturday for making Israel’s case.
How can you call yourself an “antiracist” when you pick and choose which victims of racism you wish to support?
| 9 January 2009, 5:22 pm |
The real question is what should the progressive left be doing about it?
Stopping accommodating *any* idiotic and murderous irrational religious ideology would be a start.
| 9 January 2009, 5:23 pm |
The point is that Saladin1970 is one of many. He may have been highlighted in newspaper reports and as such this post is reasonable to focus upon him, but a look around general internet forums show so much similar stuff.
| 9 January 2009, 5:28 pm |
I’ve been reading HP for months, and I’ll tell you what, it took me a long time to decide that this blog wasn’t a ‘Muslims as fifth column’ (only due to David T’s admirable posts on the issue). Most of the comments on HP make none of the careful distinctions that you’re talking about, and sometimes even when they do they then proceed to talk about Muslims in the round which I will always be suspicious of, as I am when anyone makes sweeping categorical generalisations.
| 9 January 2009, 5:33 pm |
I think there has been a failure to discuss issues of rising anti-semitism because we’ve never really had a dialogue of inter-ethnic racism, and I don’t think people are vociferous in challenging it because they aren’t comfortable with the idea that the same group can simultaneously be a victim and an aggressor.
| 9 January 2009, 5:41 pm |
I’ve been reading HP for months, and I’ll tell you what, it took me a long time to decide that this blog wasn’t a ‘Muslims as fifth column’
It’d take you months to decide on the flavour of an ice-cream cone.
Most of the comments on HP make none of the careful distinctions that you’re talking about, and sometimes even when they do they then proceed to talk about Muslims in the round which I will always be suspicious of, as I am when anyone makes sweeping categorical generalisations.
Well, sweeping, self-administered moral righteousness such as that expressed above makes ME suspicious!
| 9 January 2009, 5:56 pm |
I regularly encounter anti semitism on web forums. I wonder, is this really news? If so I have a lot of posts on a lot of forums that you can write stories about.
HP is becoming a place where you can read what nutters commented on other forums, or what some letter to the editor crank said. Can’t HP make its case by making its case rather than by saying “oh look at the loonies who support the other side”. Its like the people who always present “Jews against Zionism” as if it were proof that Hamas is to be supported.
| 9 January 2009, 6:02 pm |
@Lucy Lips’s Sister:
Are you sure that it’s wise to include a photo of a Jewish business in your post? Afterall, we wouldn’t want to go giving Saladin1970 ideas now…
| 9 January 2009, 6:05 pm |
I think Sunny’s comment was rather thoughtless, as was David T’s response. But is Sunny really picking and choosing which forms of racism he worries about? Not necessarily – had your reported the ravings of some anti-Muslim nutjob, he might have dismissed that in the same way, as not news, too. You choose not to trawl internet sites and report the ravings of anti-Muslim nut jobs – I don’t really think this means you somehow don’t care about anti-Muslim racism. I don’t think what Sunny wrote means he doesn’t care about anti-Jewish racism either. Without belittling the seriousness of attacks against Jews in anyway, it is not so unreasonable an observation that reporting the ravings of insane Muslims (assuming this guy Saladin is a Muslim) might not be terribly worthwhile. David perhaps you can retract that “fuck off Sunny” and replace it with polite disagreement.
| 9 January 2009, 6:14 pm |
Without belittling the seriousness of attacks against Jews in anyway, it is not so unreasonable an observation that reporting the ravings of insane Muslims (assuming this guy Saladin is a Muslim) might not be terribly worthwhile.
And one should be especially wary of using The Sun as a source, especially when “abuislam”, one of the “insane Muslims” quoted in the piece, in fact whose quote is central to the story, turns out to be the Sun’s own “anti-terror expert” posting under an assumed name.
| 9 January 2009, 6:21 pm |
And arguing against those who stir up racial hatred and quoting an “anti-racist” piece from the Sun to prove the point is ironic to say the least.
| 9 January 2009, 6:30 pm |
Saladin1970 is either Marl Elf or Glenn Greenwald
| 9 January 2009, 7:55 pm |
Andrew Adams,
The story has been picked up by other national UK newspapers. It just so happened that it was on the front cover of The Sun. I only spotted it as I was in the newsagent and it was staring me in the face.
What you have also ignored is that I have linked to the original thread and to numerous other comments by the same Saladin1970. I therefore did not rely upon The Sun, but went back to the original source.
| 9 January 2009, 8:37 pm |
The CST has received 50 reports in the last couple of weeks of racist incidents against Jews, including assaults and arson.
Can I ask you please to fuck off?
Why not ban me instead?
After all, it seems that any mention of Palestinian casualties and civilian deaths has been conspicuously absent from this website for the past few weeks. Furthermore, when someone like Mike from medialenswatch (who isn’t even Pro-Palestinian) express his disgust at a senior Israeli minister saying he had no qualms about civilian deaths, then Brownie, Gene and others try and justify it.
I can only assume from that this website has given up any pretence to finding peace in the Middle East, or really its claim that it cares about innocent Muslims, and is interested in supporting Israel’s case regardless.
Three pieces on anti-semitism on the front (which is a problem, and I’ve just been on BBC radio agreeing with this) but nothing on this:
Killing of 30 people in Gaza when army shelled house full of evacuees ‘has all hallmarks of war crime’, says high commissioner for human rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/gaza-palestinians-israel-evacuees-zeitoun
Why not mention that? Or is the death of Palestinians not newsworthy?
| 9 January 2009, 8:50 pm |
Why not mention that? Or is the death of Palestinians not newsworthy?
Hmm, comments critical of Israel by a UN official reported in the Guardian. Not exactly going to get much sympathy around here are they.
| 9 January 2009, 8:52 pm |
Why not mention that? Or is the death of Palestinians not newsworthy?
You just did mention it Sunny and I somehow doubt that the comment will be wiped. Brownie has expressed his doubts that Israel’s actions are a good thing so any comment he makes about what Israeli politicians say have to be viewed in that overall context. Some of us make very little comment on the middle-east anyway – are we to be forced to write posts criticising Israel? (Personally I have expressed my own reservations in the comments boxes and feel that I know far more for instance about the Muslims of the Balkans who I have posted in defence of and endured many insults for doing so.)
My bet would be that Gordon will have something to say on the subject of casualties before too long but to suggest that Palestinian casualties are being ignored just because there have been no explicit posts on this particular website is just silly.
| 9 January 2009, 8:56 pm |
I see Sunny has found a way to change the subject.
I have mentioned Palestinian suffering on this blog Sunny.
So fuck off.
| 9 January 2009, 9:03 pm |
LLS,
I don’t doubt that Saladin1970, judging by the comments above is an unpleasant anti-semitic character. I don’t object to this being pointed out. I see no evidence however that he has any real influence outside the various forums he inhabits or that his actions are personally putting people like Alan Sugar physically at risk, which is what the Sun is saying.
| 9 January 2009, 9:43 pm |
Andrew Adams,
Given that Saladin1970 mentioned him, would you say the same of Abu Hamza? That despite his rants, this one disabled man could only influence those who turned up to listen to his sermons?
| 9 January 2009, 10:02 pm |
You just did mention it Sunny an
gimme a fucking break. Its a comment not a post.
Brownie has expressed his doubts that Israel’s actions are a good thing so any comment he makes about what Israeli politicians say have to be viewed in that overall context
And I’ve expressed my hatred of anti-semitism many times. It doesn’t stop HP writers here trying to pretend I was excusing it.
I see Sunny has found a way to change the subject.
As the comment above shows.
Oh no, it was very much on subject. Its just you don’t want to answer my point.
but to suggest that Palestinian casualties are being ignored just because there have been no explicit posts on this particular website is just silly.
Why not do a comparison of how many posts there are on Palestinian deaths compared to defending Israel?
| 9 January 2009, 10:20 pm |
gimme a fucking break. Its a comment not a post.
So you ARE demanding that every website produce an equal number of posts on everything?
That way madness lies. Here’s how it works: someone makes a post and you make your comment – if you don’t think you are able to rebut people in the comments (if you have the evidence of course) then there is little point in blogging at all.
And I’ve expressed my hatred of anti-semitism many times. It doesn’t stop HP writers here trying to pretend I was excusing it.
So because someone has allegedly wronged you that means that Brownies comments should not be seen in context? That’s fucking doolaly mate!
Why not do a comparison of how many posts there are on Palestinian deaths compared to defending Israel?
And what exactly would that prove? Some HP writers defend Israel? The mainstream press has been reporting virtually every death – why the hell does it matter that HP has not done so?
Very odd behaviour.
| 9 January 2009, 10:43 pm |
Graham,
The objection (well, my objection) is not that HP is broadly pro-Israel per se, but the range of views expressed in the front page posts is so narrow that it comes across as obsessively and uncritically so, fanatically so even. I mean what’s with the continuous cut and paste jobs from Z-Word? As I’ve said before, if we wanted to read their take on the conflict we are capable of going there ourselves.
There are plenty of people out there who are staunchly pro-Israel but are still uncomfortable with the number of civilian casualties and are questioning whether Israel’s tactics are excessive or counter-productive. Those kind of views just aren’t represented in the posts here. I appreciate that Brownie and yourself come across as relative voices of reason in the comments but you have to appreciate that people judge a site by what is on the front page and the kind of people attracted to the comments box as a whole and HP is seriously getting a reputation as yet another one of those fanatical single issue sites where you won’t get anything resembling a balanced debate, even amongst some people who support Israel.
Obviously it’s your site and you can publish what you like and tell those who don’t like it to fuck off, but I think most of us who run a blog want to attract as wide an audience as possible and you are in danger of severely narrowing yours.
| 9 January 2009, 10:51 pm |
Sunny,
I suspect that if you ask about, you’ll find a wider range of views on this conflict amongst HP regular posters (not the nutbars, who seem to love bloodshed) then might be expected, ie. I am very much against the Israeli military incursion into Gaza.
| 9 January 2009, 10:55 pm |
So you ARE demanding that every website produce an equal number of posts on everything?
Not demanding anything at all. I’m merely pointing out that for a blog that claims to stand for peace, against racism and against the murder of innocent civilians, its doing a fantastic job of excusing the Israeli government’s behaviour…. to the point that its authors even try and justify a video clearly showing the interior minister saying he had no problems with civilian deaths.
What kind of values are those? HP isn’t standing up to the values it claims to be standing up for, it is merely standing up for completely excusing whatever the Israeli govt is doing.
Furthermore, if you challenge and ask, on a day when the UN is asking why the Israeli govt stopped ambulances from getting into the dying, and so many civilians got murdered, its focusing on some bat-shit internet nutters, then suddenly one is accused of excusing anti-semitism.
Oh dear… this place really has lost its bearings.
| 9 January 2009, 10:57 pm |
I suspect that if you ask about, you’ll find a wider range of views on this conflict amongst HP regular posters
Not sure what you mean by ‘ask about’. I’m reading the front page – surely that’s a good indicator of what issues the posters want to highlight?
| 9 January 2009, 11:04 pm |
but the range of views expressed in the front page posts is so narrow that it comes across as obsessively and uncritically so, fanatically so even.
I take your point and can only apologise for being lazy (although to be quite honest even if I was posting regularly it would be unlikely to be on the middle-east. Fwiw I do think that Gene and David T have done their best to ensure that a range of views come across here and as I have said before it is not their fault that they (Gene and David that is) are the most energetic posters. Wardy, Ven, etc choose not to post here anymore but they would hardly have been posting constantly in support of Israel.
I mean what’s with the continuous cut and paste jobs from Z-Word?
Well they are hardly constant! But I am afraid there really is no HP “line” and nobody tells me what is going to be posted and I therefore cannot tell you why there have been cross posts from Z word. I don’t even know who actually did post them so can’t even ask.
| 9 January 2009, 11:07 pm |
I suppose the problem here is that there is an assumed “line” that people want to attack but people such as Sunny would make a lot more sense and probably get a lot further if they actually took particular posters to task for what they have written?
That would surely be sensible (if taking a little more intelligence than attacking the barnyard door of a non-pexistent “HP line”.)
| 9 January 2009, 11:20 pm |
inter-ethnic racism
Is this tautology, or by way of tangential differentiation from the the intra-ethnic, self-hating kind?
| 9 January 2009, 11:44 pm |
Sunny,
you write for a living?
if so, please, could you make an effort to READ ?
“Not sure what you mean by ‘ask about’.”
there are MANY posters on HP, but that doesn’t mean they all want to write all of the time
I, for example, do stuff a bit erratically and others don’t post on the Middle East or related topics cos they don’t want to, or it is not something that they feel happy writing about
so there are MANY reasons for posting, and views here are very varied, it is not a mono culture of ideas, by any means
thus it would be silly to assume an overall “line” (as Graham ably argues) on this topic, people make their minds up on the circumstances as they see it. I, again, am against the Israeli action in Gaza, having said that I have no illusion about the nature of Hamas
and I am mightily pissed off with the barely conceal Jew baiting that occurs across the web, where people use the cunning word play of “the Zionists” to hide their malice, in the wake of this conflict
please remember the HP posters are not robots, nor are we without disagreements but we don’t always feel like posting all of the time, so sometimes HP will cover one issue to excess and other times it hits on a lot of issues that don’t get much coverage elsewhere, it depends.
| 9 January 2009, 11:53 pm |
That would surely be sensible (if taking a little more intelligence than attacking the barnyard door of a non-pexistent “HP line”.)
I do that anyway. Apparently, I should fuck off.
Fwiw I do think that Gene and David T have done their best to ensure that a range of views come across
Really? A range of views from what to what?
thus it would be silly to assume an overall “line
Who said there was? I was being derisive of the fact that so much attention was being paid to online nutbags, when actual people are dying by the rate of nearly a hundred a day. And so far the only posts I’ve seen range from excusing Israeli action to outright supporting it.
But apparently, if you don’t bite that line, then you’re an anti-semite.
| 10 January 2009, 12:14 am |
Really? A range of views from what to what?
From support for Israel to art criticism of Vermeer (well you asked.)
I was being derisive of the fact that so much attention was being paid to online nutbags, when actual people are dying by the rate of nearly a hundred a day.
You will really want to have a go at the author of those Vermeer pieces then – imagine talking about art when so many people in the world are losing their lives in motoring accidents?
Some people find this Saladin character threatening – I don’t see how that invalidates suffering elsewhere in the world. As for you being an “anti-semite” come off it Sunny! You have been around long enough to know that debates about Israel get heated (and not only at HP) I too have been called such names at times (big fucking deal.)
And I (and I suspect Mr T) would rather you didn’t fuck off (although it might please Morgoth if you did.)
| 10 January 2009, 12:43 am |
Sunny
Where else during this present conflict do you find any focus at all on Hamas?
Try reading the MSM, front page, inside, supplements, BBC website etc etc, and unless you actually know something about Hamas you will learn almost nothing, certainly not that their rockets came after Israeli unilateral disengagment from Gaza and before the present Israeli offensive.
This is not a rhetorical request, I mean really try this ecercise while trying to keep everything you know about Hamas clearly in your mind, while trying not to be provoked into a reaction by the heartrending stories of innocent Palestinian suffering.
What you will find is adeliberate misrepresentation of the conflict, pictures of little Qasseems next to big Israeli Missiles; little arrows for little ‘locally manufacture’ Hamas rockets (a little cottage industry) next to big swoops of israeli aircraft and tanks and troop numbers.
And ask yourself if this is a remotely honest, fair or balanced level of reporting that actually puts into the conflict the reality of Hamas’s brutality and patent disregard for civilian life either Israeli or Palestinian?
Do this before you paint us all with a pro-Israeli stamp.
I was completely against Israeli actions in the 2006 Lebanon conflict.
I am not against the general strategy of Israel in this conflict though I can deplore operational excesses.
You must know what an obscenity Hamas represents in its cult of death.
How can anyone honestly talk about a total failure of Israeli humanitarian concerns, by taking the words of one minister against the evidence of Israeli operating norms.
Red cross and crescent demanded of Israel an escort for their safety to carry out humanitarian work and got it, maybe a future investigation will find military culpability in not doing enough to avoid civilian death.
But you know that Hamas does nothing to avoid its own civilian death but encourages and relishes its propaganda value.
If Hamas could show that through the network of tunnels to Egypt that have kept them well supplied with millions of dollars and weapons to murder and maim, they had brought even one packet of needed medicines or one school book, they might have the slightest claim to be the defenders of gazans rather than the overlords that keep them in hell.
An organisation that lets the UN and wider world, even demands of Israel, carry out the humanitarian and welfare activities,yet as the government of its people denies any such responsibility, while pouring millions of dollars of money from violent and undemecratic regimes into the eternal pusuit of an ideology of death and annhialation, is the guilty party in this carnage.
So Sunny what about Hamas? what do you think should be the reaction to Hamas?
Why do you ignore the crimes of the guilty actors in this cruel theatre of bloodshed and at the same time seek to brush of the rising anti-semitic attacks emanating from their supporters?
Lets turn it around. If you do not conemn Hamas and hold them uniquely responsible for the present conflict then you really are Hamas now.
| 10 January 2009, 1:58 am |
After all, it seems that any mention of Palestinian casualties and civilian deaths has been conspicuously absent from this website for the past few weeks. Furthermore, when someone like Mike from medialenswatch (who isn’t even Pro-Palestinian) express his disgust at a senior Israeli minister saying he had no qualms about civilian deaths, then Brownie, Gene and others try and justify it.
Nope. Brownie watched the interview in real time and recognised Mike’s accidental misrepresentation of it. If you read the thread again, you’ll see I referred to Shitreet’s postion as “morally indefensible”. And I’ve said the same thing countless times about *some* of Israel’s actions in the last 2 weeks, having called for a ceasefire before the ground incursion.
I cut you slack, Sunny, and conclude this is all an honest mistake on your part.
| 10 January 2009, 2:12 am |
Here’s what I said in repsonse to Mike’s assertion that Shitreet had said it was okay to target civilians (scroll to comment at 1:03am in the link):
I saw that interview and this isn’t completely accurate. He certainly made no bones about the fact that we should expect Israel to return fire, even if the incoming emanates from a civilian area or building. In my view, such a policy risks – or at least could potentially risk if taken to its logical conclusion – indefensible civilian casualties. In Shitreet’s view, Israel is targeting the source of the attack upon it, and if this means civilians get hurt, the responsibility lies only with Hamas. This isn’t good enough for me, but it’s still not the same as “targeting civilians”. More like a reckless disregard for their safety (not in all cases, but some).
Here’s how Sunny represents my view:
If you scroll more than halfway down this thread on Harry’s Place, Mike points out this interview [with Shitreet]. But rather than condemn the death of innocent civilians, much less say they’re appalled by a govt minister saying they don’t care about civilian casualties, you see Brownie and Gene of HP saying this policy was perfectly justified.
I think a retraction is in order. Sunny?
| 10 January 2009, 2:26 am |
And at 1:19am in the same thread, I said (emphasis added):
Sorry Mike, but there is nothing in what I agree is the objectionable Shitreet’s words that supports your assertion that Israel has a policy of targeting civilians. His “so what” followed other comments where he’d made it clear that, in his view, a civilian building which was being used to launch shells or rockets at Israeli forces was, by definition, a legitimate military target. His dismissal of inevitable civlian casualties as the sole responsibility of Hamas and no-one else doesn’t wash with me, but targeting of civilians it is not.
And at 1:24am
Shitreet’s lack of concern about the levels of collateral damage Israel will inflict by returning fire every time, no matter the origin of the attack on it or the proximity of large numbers of civilians, is already morally repugnant. There is no need to turn it into something else.
And at 1:33am:
Anybody who thinks Israel has a right to return fire inreturn fire all circumstances no matter what, should try a little thought experiment:
Suppose Israel’s return fire having taken an incoming shell had a 50% chance of killing 10,000 five year olds. Assuming all right-thinking people would deny Israel’s right to return fire in such circumstances, the pricniple has already been established that Israel cannot simply absolve herself of all responsibility for her actions simply becasue Hamas are a bunch of war criminals.
Next, work back from 10,000 to discover your individual tipping point.
And at 1:47am:
Firing at targets when you know this will result in civlian casualties is not the same as targeting civilians. It might still be a war crime, but it doesn’t justify your description of Israeli policy as “targeting civilians”.
And at 1:54am:
the rules of war do not proscribe every act that will inevitably lead to civilian casualties; they simply require that actors balance the risk to civlians against legitimate military objectives. Shitreet’s blanket defence of Israel’s right to return fire in all circumstances necessarily absolves Israel of all responsibility to make any such assessment. It is morally indefensible.
Have I made my point, do you think? Do I get my retraction, Sunny?
| 10 January 2009, 2:27 am |
This is like the most important piece of news in the world! How some nutjob has been writing crap on internet forums! Well knock me down with a feather! Hide your women! etc etc.
If you thought it were as inconsequential as you say, why did you comment? Why I suspect is that it threatens you, namely suggests there are some deeply unpleasant and highly dangerous individuals out there hitching a ride on the Gaza protests. As you are now demanding why Harry’s Place is not devoting sufficient time to civilian dead, can I ask which relevant threads you have posted in?
I don’t recall seeing you. In fact, the only one recently I do recall seeing you is one which discusses a deeply unpleasant and highly dangerous individual out there hitching a ride on the Gaza protests. And you proceed to declare discussion of this off-limits.
The mind boggles!
Why not ban me instead?
I don’t think you should be banned, although I am beginning to pity you. This is not the first time you’ve blundered into a thread without any emotional intelligence, like Kevin the Teenager, and made a tit of yourself. I would suggest you run away and hide, or get Sid to start blathering about Bernard Manning. At least until you become a Tory M.P.
| 10 January 2009, 2:41 am |
Some people find this Saladin character threatening – I don’t see how that invalidates suffering elsewhere in the world
We’re talking about a particular event taking place Graham – HP and PP have more or less been talking about it continually since it started. You don’t find it a bit bizarre that with so many people dying, on the same issue, not just random issue (because I’m not asking anyone to condemn deaths in Zimbabwe or Somalia am I?), that one online nutjob is worth more space than the fact that the death toll has reached over 700??
Wow. That really is something isn’t it? Like I said, I honestly think this place has lost its moral bearings on the issue.
mettaculture – are you honestly asking me what I think about Hamas? No really, is that your actual question?
Brownie – apologies, I stand corrected. However, my original point, made above to Graham, still stands.
| 10 January 2009, 2:45 am |
Sunny, thanks.
| 10 January 2009, 2:45 am |
But just to clarify, Gene’s morally repugnant defence of Shitreet, and actually trying to excuse the deaths of those kids in the UN schools is way out of kilter with the sort of values this site has claimed to stand for. In my opinion of course.
| 10 January 2009, 2:47 am |
And you can delete my comment at PP asking for the same retraction.
| 10 January 2009, 2:48 am |
And why are we all up at this time of night?
| 10 January 2009, 2:59 am |
Sunny@0245, that’s reasonable.
| 10 January 2009, 3:01 am |
You’re an obsession compulsive, Brownie.
I drank six viscous black coffees from my repaired Italian coffee maker tod… yesterday.
| 10 January 2009, 8:59 am |
You don’t find it a bit bizarre that with so many people dying, on the same issue, not just random issue (because I’m not asking anyone to condemn deaths in Zimbabwe or Somalia am I?), that one online nutjob is worth more space than the fact that the death toll has reached over 700??
Whether I find something “bizarre” or not (and I don’t, frankly, this being a blog and people rolling out posts about whatever they like) does not really matter. I would not personally post about an individual like this and would be very unlikely to post about Israel/Palestine whatever the casualty figures. As far as I’m concerned whatever others want to post about is up to them and I certainly don’t feel that a lack of reporting of something which is already all over the newspapers already means HP “has lost its moral bearings on the issue.”‘ If you think those who write on the middle east here are able to hide anything like that then you are nuts.
| 10 January 2009, 9:38 am |
And why are we all up at this time of night?
Can you just stop with these collective accusations which so obviously do not apply to those of us who went to bed at 1am?
| 10 January 2009, 11:24 am |
Sunny
What you think of Hamas is part of the question, as I don’t see any photographic evidence of a sign denouncing them (contrary to your prior claim) at the Hamas co-organised demonstration against Israel (or was it for peace) that you attended last week.
The more important question, that you and everyone else who condemns Israel’s actions, dodges is:
What do you think should be done to stop Hamas and its continual salvo of rockets launched against several hundred thousand Israelis?
| 10 January 2009, 12:47 pm |
“Imagine if there where no zionists in UK and US”
My dream is that there are no supporters of Al Qaeda in the UK. Unlikely sadly.
| 10 January 2009, 2:30 pm |
What do you think should be done to stop Hamas and its continual salvo of rockets launched against several hundred thousand Israelis?
From Sunny et al, nothing?
The most recent thread on PP has descended into a thread on the best way to destroy Israel.
Hundal isn’t interested, unless its a chance to puff himself up for a shot at either a Guardian job or a Labour PPC. Another holocaust taking place at the hands of his chums in Hamas would merely be a stepping stone for him to achieve these ends.
| 10 January 2009, 3:25 pm |
Those of his readers that are anti-Zionist but not antisemitic
Sorry, no such thing. Opposing a national homeland for the Jews but not for the Bulgarians, Norwegians and Japanese is antisemitic.
| 10 January 2009, 3:30 pm |
And so far the only posts I’ve seen range from excusing Israeli action to outright supporting it.
There is nothing to ‘excuse’. Israel is defending itself. Suck it up.
| 10 January 2009, 3:36 pm |
Why not do a comparison of how many posts there are on Palestinian deaths compared to defending Israel?
Oh yes, the mindless ‘proportionality’ thing again.
I and others are defending Israel because it’s the victim, because it is responding to murderous rocket attacks, and because the antisemites are out in force to condemn the Joos for defending themselves – something I and others will continue pointing out as long as it exists.
The Arab casualties are caused by Arabs refusing to stop murdering Jews (and the odd hapless Arab who lives in Israel and gets murdered accidentally). There is very little one can say about this other than if you elect a Nazi government, sooner or later it will end badly.
| 10 January 2009, 4:15 pm |
You need to take a look at the latest antics on MPACUK’s forum concerning Saladin_1970. Getting a pasting from one or two of the more sane contributors there, the response of the moderator (an egregious and sub-literate twerp going by the handle of Ahqar) is to close all threads in which Saladin is being exposed as the violent little bigot he really is.
It would appear, from a number of posts (not least from the adminstrator, Musab) that MPACUK are rather fond of Saladin, who appears to be an old MPACUK hand. MPACUK appear to be enjoying the notoriety of being associated with this pathetic twat – hardly a surprise when you consider it took MPACUK some six weeks to finally ban an open anti-Semite and Holocaust denier (one nadeem_a456)… and it took them exactly one day to ban the only one Israeli contributor (a rather erudite Iraqi Jew) on the grounds that he was… cough… Jewish.
Wankers.
| 22 January 2009, 12:36 am |
Saladin1970 also recently posted David T’s work address and contact details on the Ummah forum, and demanded “action”.
X
Yaffi
Al-Hur Al-Ayn
| 22 January 2009, 12:38 am |
sorry, that should read the MPACUK forum- me getting mixed up! He posts on both, on MPACUK as Saladin 1970.5 and on Ummah.com as Saladin 1970. Here’s a link to the thread:
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=39283&highlight=david+toube
| 22 January 2009, 6:39 pm |
Yafiah, please keep up….this was revealed as a hoax a week ago….”Saladin1970″ was infact the bloke who sold the story to The Sun in the first place!
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/sun-exposed-over-british-gaza-blowback.html
| 4 February 2009, 1:08 am |
Nope Glenn, “Abu Islam” aka Glen Jenvey (most likely) was the person who sold the story to The Sun. Saladin1970 was the one who started the thread:
http://ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=195566
As you can see from the thread, “Abu Islam” doesn’t get into the mix until a few posts down. And just added fuel to the fire.
Sounds like he’s a journalist with The Guardian