The last two days I got two twice
censored by the Economist. I sent them the following email, to which I got no reply:
Could you please elaborate
what comment policy rule have I violated in informing the readers of the
'sunset clause' in the Iran deal, something that The Economist did not find
important enough to mention?
Dear Mladen Andrijasevic,
The attached comment, posted under the pen name Mladen_Andrijasevic, has been deleted from The Economist online. The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:
http://www.economist.com/legal
We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.
Yours sincerely,
Comments Moderator The Economist online
Your comment:
Daniel Greenfield: Aiding Islamic Terrorists Is Our Foreign Policy
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.
[1]
Bush tried to build up civil society to choke off terrorism. Obama builds
civil society around terrorists.
Obama does not believe that the terrorists are the problem. He believes that
we are the problem. His foreign policy is not about fighting Islamic
terrorists. It is about destroying our power to stop them.
He isn’t fighting terrorists. He’s fighting us
The attached comment, posted under the pen name Mladen_Andrijasevic, has been deleted from The Economist online. The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:
http://www.economist.com/legal
We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.
Yours sincerely,
Comments Moderator The Economist online
Your comment:
Daniel Greenfield: Aiding Islamic Terrorists Is Our Foreign Policy
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.
[1]
Bush tried to build up civil society to choke off terrorism. Obama builds
civil society around terrorists.
Obama does not believe that the terrorists are the problem. He believes that
we are the problem. His foreign policy is not about fighting Islamic
terrorists. It is about destroying our power to stop them.
He isn’t fighting terrorists. He’s fighting us
Dear Mladen Andrijasevic,
The attached comment, posted under the pen name Mladen_Andrijasevic, has been deleted from The Economist online. The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:
http://www.economist.com/legal
We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.
Yours sincerely,
Comments Moderator The Economist online
Your comment:
The “Sunset Clause” in the Iran deal – the quintessence of the
Obama-Netanyahu rift almost nobody talks about
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.
[1]
Among all the reporting on the Obama-Netanyahu feud in the last three months
I have come across only two articles which explain what is the serious
disagreement actually about. The first was in in Jerusalem Post on November
22, 2014 by Michael Wilner JP Exclusive: Cornered but unbound by nuclear
pact, Israel reconsiders military action against Iran and the second was in
the Washington Post on Feb 19, 2015 by David Ignatius Why Netanyahu broke
publicly with Obama over Iran
What does the “sunset clause mean? - It means the after 10 years Iran will
be bound by no restrictions and will be 0 days away from the bomb.
This is an appalling neglect of the media to report on what really matters.
Even worse is the media’s analysis of what would happen if Iran did get the
bomb.
Ask yourselves a simple question. How many times did you read in the world
and Israeli press Bernard Lewis’s statement - “For people with this
mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement... " ?
Netanyahu must not give in. He has to quote Bernard Lewis in front of US
Congress.
The attached comment, posted under the pen name Mladen_Andrijasevic, has been deleted from The Economist online. The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:
http://www.economist.com/legal
We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.
Yours sincerely,
Comments Moderator The Economist online
Your comment:
The “Sunset Clause” in the Iran deal – the quintessence of the
Obama-Netanyahu rift almost nobody talks about
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.
[1]
Among all the reporting on the Obama-Netanyahu feud in the last three months
I have come across only two articles which explain what is the serious
disagreement actually about. The first was in in Jerusalem Post on November
22, 2014 by Michael Wilner JP Exclusive: Cornered but unbound by nuclear
pact, Israel reconsiders military action against Iran and the second was in
the Washington Post on Feb 19, 2015 by David Ignatius Why Netanyahu broke
publicly with Obama over Iran
What does the “sunset clause mean? - It means the after 10 years Iran will
be bound by no restrictions and will be 0 days away from the bomb.
This is an appalling neglect of the media to report on what really matters.
Even worse is the media’s analysis of what would happen if Iran did get the
bomb.
Ask yourselves a simple question. How many times did you read in the world
and Israeli press Bernard Lewis’s statement - “For people with this
mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement... " ?
Netanyahu must not give in. He has to quote Bernard Lewis in front of US
Congress.
