Amoral Equivocation of the Grauniad and the Liberal-left

#2
Its unbelievable how the standards of 'journalism' and comment in this comic actually get worse. 'It would be wrong to jump to any conclusions' WTF?! maybe it was the ALF or Baptists, oh no hang on I bet it was the Japs, notorious bastards those.
 
#3
Incredible isn't it? Guardian readers are the kind of people who make up our government and are strategically placed in most of our public services. Are they just stupid misguided or are they something far more sinister!

Anyone want to make a bet on the perprtrators of this atrocity?
 
#4
I particularly liked this comment:

KGersen

July 12, 2006 03:35 AM

Amazing, once again the Guardian proves what a clueless bunch of morons they are when it comes to terrorism in India - 'HINDU' and Muslim terrorists - what exactly was the 'Hindu' terrorism - once again the Guardian takes the biscuit for the English prize of 'equal-equal' - well f@ck you. Do you really think that a multiple terrorist atrocity timed at the same time is some local group? Just because Musharaff, the military dictator of Pakistan, issues some cheap response then Pakistan is not responsible? I'm not surprised really - this is the same paper that employs Isabel Hilton who knew so little about Kashmir that she decided that India somehow invaded region - erm, no, try and read about a place before you open your silly trap. But then they also pay Faisal Bodi, who supported quite openly in the pages of the Guardian the founder of Jaish-e-Muhammad, a terrorist group that hijacked an Indian airplane, murdered a passenger and colluded with the Taliban, Al Queda and the Pakistani intelligence services to free him and also the eventual murderer of Daniel Pearl, Omar Sheikh. But even now the Guardian loves to depict the murderers of innocent Indians as 'militants' - you are truly scum.
 
#6
Sergey this article is symptomatic of a liberal culture that just can't seem to accept the true nature of the islamic religion. This rag (And the BBC) are truly Orwellian in their capacity for twisting or denying the truth. In their cosy little worlds murdering scum become "Militants" as if they are on a picket line fighting to keep their jobs. Sometimes they are called Insurgents or exteremists but on no account are they ever labelled terrorist.

I think I despise the liberal elite of this country as much as I hate the killers..... at least you know which side the terrorist is on.
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
AndyPipkin said:
The Graun has now made itself as popular with Hindus as it is with Jews. Read the comments below the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1818247,00.html
Andy!

What is wrong with this article? Place quote(s) and comment them, please.
Sergey, how would you describe Shamil Basayev? A 'militant'? A 'guerilla'? An 'activist'? The Graun would use all these terms rather than describe him for what he was, a terrorist.

How would you describe the Beslan massacre, the Moscow theatre seige, etc? I would call them terrorist atrocities. The Grauniad would probably call them 'asymetric warfare acts'. That's how one of their commentators described 9/11 anyway.
 
#8
Warrior_Poet said:
Sergey this article is symptomatic of a liberal culture that just can't seem to accept the true nature of the islamic religion. This rag (And the BBC) are truly Orwellian in their capacity for twisting or denying the truth. In their cosy little worlds murdering scum become "Militants" as if they are on a picket line fighting to keep their jobs. Sometimes they are called Insurgents or exteremists but on no account are they ever labelled terrorist.

I think I despise the liberal elite of this country as much as I hate the killers..... at least you know which side the terrorist is on.
Well, it is a well known question why not to call terrrist as terrorists. I rather agree with a viewpoint that any newspaper should first of all inform readers.

A militant = armed man - it is rather infromation.
A trrorist - it is rather an estimate.

Any reader is free to make own estimates.
 
#10
AndyPipkin said:
KGB_resident said:
AndyPipkin said:
The Graun has now made itself as popular with Hindus as it is with Jews. Read the comments below the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1818247,00.html
Andy!

What is wrong with this article? Place quote(s) and comment them, please.
Sergey, how would you describe Shamil Basayev? A 'militant'? A 'guerilla'? An 'activist'? The Graun would use all these terms rather than describe him for what he was, a terrorist.

How would you describe the Beslan massacre, the Moscow theatre seige, etc? I would call them terrorist atrocities. The Grauniad would probably call them 'asymetric warfare acts'. That's how one of their commentators described 9/11 anyway.
From my private point of view of course Shamil Basaev (recently sent to the hell) is a terrorist. But is is my estimate, and I have right for my own estimate. As for Guardian and BBC they undeline their position: for some resons they don't use a word terrorist in their news, because their readers have right to make own estimates.

So (taking it in mind) I don't protest against position of the BBC and Guardian.

It is much worse to call one terrorists as terrorista and othere terrorists as "fridom fighters".

For example it is not right to call members of Hezbullah as terrorists. Personally I'm anwarare about even one terror act made by Hezbollah in recent 10 years.
 
#12
Proper little Islamophile ain't we castleriegh? Are you saying that you really think Hindus were responsible for killing Hindu? Or do you think that its down to the usual suspects and usual perpetrators?
 
#13
Warrior_Poet said:
Are you saying that you really think Hindus were responsible for killing Hindu? Or do you think that its down to the usual suspects and usual perpetrators?
I think we should wait until we have some facts before we make judgements.

I'm no bleeding-heart liberal but I really am struggling with what was wrong with that leader. If someone can quote a specific sentence that maybe I've misinterpreted then I'd be very grateful.
 
#14
I think the liberal elite of this country are the real enemies of the nation.
Always panseying about taking on every World event and revolution, but
seemingly never what suits Britain. :(

Is it just me or does anyone else find unequivocal condemnation
wrong and idiotic. I mean politicians are spouse to give leadership but
quite often end up in slanging matches over which person or party issued
the first unequivocal condemnation of events.
 
#15
ssupersixfour said:
Warrior_Poet said:
Are you saying that you really think Hindus were responsible for killing Hindu? Or do you think that its down to the usual suspects and usual perpetrators?
I think we should wait until we have some facts before we make judgements.

I'm no bleeding-heart liberal but I really am struggling with what was wrong with that leader. If someone can quote a specific sentence that maybe I've misinterpreted then I'd be very grateful.
I think the clue comes at the start of the article.

The grim years since the 9/11 assault on the US have seen far too many of them - large-scale atrocities in Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul, Madrid and London - so the experience of mangled bodies, collapsing telephone networks, frantic citizens and the cruel testing of emergency services has now been widely shared across the globe.
True, nothing is proven yet, but given the MO, it's reasonable to assume that the Hindus haven't suddenly started killing each other with train bombs.

Why is the Guardian the first to piously declare that we shouldn't automatically put Muslims in the frame, when they are doing exactly that with Hindus?
 
#16
Personally I don't read the paper, I also find most articles reported on here give a good enough reason not to and have yet to make friends with or associate with to my knowledge anyone who does read it.

Asinine attitude to atrocities like this only engender more [terrorist] "acts" when no one is willing to point the finger.

Me thinks I will continue to not read the paper in future


JJ
 
#17
Awol said:
Why is the Guardian the first to piously declare that we shouldn't automatically put Muslims in the frame, when they are doing exactly that with Hindus?
Can someone show me which bit I've clearly missed which blames hindus for the atrocity? The only mention of the word 'Hindu' I can find is the following:

The Guardian said:
Terrorist attacks in India in recent years have been the work of Hindu and Muslim extremists.
As a point of fact, I'm still struggling with what's wrong with that.
 
#18
ssupersixfour said:
Awol said:
Why is the Guardian the first to piously declare that we shouldn't automatically put Muslims in the frame, when they are doing exactly that with Hindus?
Can someone show me which bit I've clearly missed which blames hindus for the atrocity? The only mention of the word 'Hindu' I can find is the following:

The Guardian said:
Terrorist attacks in India in recent years have been the work of Hindu and Muslim extremists.
As a point of fact, I'm still struggling with what's wrong with that.
Because Hindu terrorists have never targeted mainly Hindu civilians. To do so, or to suggest they would do so is ridiculous (the Guardian, not you). The whole thing shouts that it was muslim terrorists; from the techniques used, the materials used, the timings, the sophistication and the history of the past couple of years, they all suggest strongly that it was Al Qaeda or someone affiliated with them.

The Guardian are not just sitting on the fence (which would be acceptable for a news organisation), they have both feet swinging happily over the other side of it.
 
#19
SS4 , i've read the leader, and especially the part that people seem to have overlooked in the Guardian's commentary.

The first thing to say is that anyone who targets suburban commuter trains is a criminal, whatever cause, grievance, ideology or belief their motivation. The indiscriminate mass murder of innocent people is terrorism, pure and simple. It can never be justified.
Nothing wrong with that I can see.

The context of Hindu Terrorism if it exists? Obviously people are going to mention Gujarat here , or the Delhi anti-Sikh riots in 1984?

I don't know you can define mob-lust as terrorism but there have been 'incidents'.

Fingers are pointed by some communities at the Vishwa Hindu Parishad , who could give the BNP a run for their money when it comes to Nationalism or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh described variously as extremist or far-right para-military groups. The Guardian make the comment re. The Pakistani Prime Minster as 'heartening' simply in the context it may prevent an immediate knee-jerk reaction by the Indian Government. I don't think for one second they believe Pakistani nationals have never been 'connected' with acts against India. I'm sure there are stories in the Guardian archives that bear this out.

So is the real problem here , "It's the Guardian"?
 
#20
Pongo wrote:

Fingers are pointed by some communities at the Vishwa Hindu Parishad , who could give the BNP a run for their money

I wasn't aware the BNP has ever advocated terrorism or violence? Always thought their official policy was to have a referendum on the death sentence for terrorists? Strange you immediately link nationalism to Muslim terrorism, Maybe you are doing a Guardian and attempting to make a link where non exists in order to further your own Liberal agenda?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads