|
« Weimar UK
Main A strange absence of intelligence » |
January 30, 2004
On his knees before terror
Is there no limit to the extent to which the Archbishop of Canterbury will suck up to terror? Yesterday's genocide bomb on the number 19 bus in Jerusalem, which killed ten people and wounded 44, was carried out by a Palestinian Authority policeman. On the same day, Dr Rowan Williams was at the end of his week's visit to the Holy Land. Did he tour the hospitals offering his condolences to the injured and bereaved? He did not. Did he visit the site of the bombing? He did not. Instead, this man of peace spent the day in Ramallah where he was presented with a medal by Yasser Arafat, chairman of the same Palestinian Authority. But don't worry -- he deplored the loss of yet more lives from 'communities' where too much blood had already been spilt. Note that word 'communities'. Even when Jews are being blown up around him, he cannot bring himself to identify them as victims and the Palestinians as their murderers, but must offer equal sympathy to both sides. Nauseating. The man is a disgrace to his calling. Posted by melanie at January 30, 2004
Comments
Right on Melanie. It's a long time since there's been an Archbishop of Canterbury who wasn't a disgrace one way or another. Williams, however, seems to be particularly loathsome. Posted by: Havdala at January 30, 2004 08:33 PMIf one wishes to condemn terrorism,one is compelled,by the logic adopted by Ms Phillips, to condemn Israel terrorism as well as illegitimate Palestinian violence(eg. bus bombings,etc);this though being distinct from legitimate resistence to occupation. .If,therefore,one is to condemn the Palestinians for,inter alia,bus bombings,one must condemn the bombing of civilian areas by Israel,the shooting of children,the humiliation of those whose country is now being colonised in defiance of international law,and the war crimes committed in the name of the state of Israel,all of which are documented. Yes, like the archbishop, some way must be found to avoid making a moral judgement. Judge not that you be not judged. We can't be seen to think that the Islamic fixation on domination and death has made them evil. But of course it has. Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at January 31, 2004 01:05 AMIf one wishes to condemn terrorism, one is compelled, blablabla, to condemn British terrorism as well as illegitimate nazi violence: how can the understandable bombings of Coventry, Rotterdam, Warsaw, the killing of Russian POWs and so on justify the terrorist barbarity of killing innocent German children whose fathers were away on business or leisure trips in the USSR, Poland, France, North Africa? And what about the ilegal allied occupation of France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Austria and Germany? And how can one approve of the targeted killings of the legitimate members or the legitimate government of the 3rd Reich at the kangaroo court at Nurmberg? After all, there has always been something called international law based on a constitution voted by the International Congress the members of which were directly elected by the citizens of the Republic of the world, a law that is kept by the International Judiciary, the judges of which have been appointed by the elected president of the world and ratified by the world representatives and senators, and whoever transgresses that international law will be captured by the world police, tried by the world court of justice and jailed in the international jail. So guys, what are you waiting for to go there and jail the criminal state of Israel? Israel could be tried and jailed in the Hague, right? By the way, since we're talking about "their" (the Arabs') country, the papers should be presented to the court, I mean, to prove when the country was bought from its earlier owners. Someone with legal authority to say which country belongs to whom should also be present at the trial. Maybe Allah wouldn't mind testifying, would he? Posted by: nelson at January 31, 2004 02:00 AMNelson Admiral Lord Nelson I presume? And do you wear a three cornered hat, an eye patch and put your hand in your coat as you are walking the streets imprecating? Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 31, 2004 02:28 AMThe Archbishop (no Cranmer he is that's for sure) has the perfect attitude of a well behaved dhimmi. Posted by: Samantha at January 31, 2004 02:55 AMWhose country, Tantris? Both you and the Archbishop seem afflicted by the same diabolical moral equivalence that equates a liberal democracy defending its existence with a horde of fanatical, murderous barbarians hell-bent on genocide. Why don't you go amongst them and declare your infidelity? See how long you would last. You make me puke. Posted by: slatts at January 31, 2004 03:22 AMTantris, you're a sick puppy. Seeing as Arafat started his terrorist escapades in the early 60's, how can you blame Israel for that? Ah - of course, you're one of them - a pathetic whinger who wants to re-write history. Well, you can't. But, what you can do, is get out of the UK and head for the comrades in arms who will welcome you with open arms for volunteering to die in the name of their demon god Molech. Posted by: adele at January 31, 2004 05:25 AMWhy does everyone rush to condemn Rowan Williams? Do you presume that you know what he said to Arafat in private? If I were visiting the West Bank, I would like to stop by at Ramallah and give Arafat a piece of my mind. Wouldn't you? Posted by: KJN at January 31, 2004 07:08 AMEEEEWWW... the image alone of the Archbishop of Canterbury on his knees before Arafat (a well-known voracious homosexual and alleged "boy-lover") just made me lose my breakfast... Posted by: Ploni at January 31, 2004 09:06 AM"If I were visiting the West Bank, I would like to stop by at Ramallah and give Arafat a piece of my mind. Wouldn't you?" And if this were 1944 instead of 2004, would you also stop by Berchtesgaden to wag your finger at Hitler? Posted by: Charles at January 31, 2004 10:49 AMThe situation is hardly analogous to 1944; and Arafat is not Hitler. Granted, finger-wagging, or even politely asking Arafat such questions as why he thinks his terrorist strategy is in the best interests of the Palestinians, are not likely to change anything. But what is the alternative? Only have sycophants and anti-semites speak to the man? That's hardly a formula for changing his mind. Posted by: KJN at January 31, 2004 01:36 PMI was going to write and condemn the Archbishop of Canterbury, however reading the bile and invective from the children like Charles and Nelson with their silly references to Hitler and the Nazis, I shall not bother. The trite silliness of Charles and Nelson makes one see how poor their education has been. They try to belittle the one country to stand up to the Nazis, but I suspect they resent the fact that Britaiin did and the US did not. I am totally oppose to Rown Williams for many doctrinal reasons and because he is one of those pandering to other creeds; but after reading the risible bile and hatred oozing out of obsessives like Charles and Nelson; I shall not criticise the Archbishop at all. Posted by: Romulus at January 31, 2004 02:43 PMKJN - it is unlikely that Rowan Williams would in any way reprimand Arafat in private and then accept a decoration from him in public. Posted by: Havdala at January 31, 2004 03:46 PMIs this report in Debka what is upsetting you Nelson ?
First, let's say nowadays it is somewhat safer to walk the London streets imprecating if you're wearing tweed or a turban and the safest imprecations, those for which you won't ever be condemned, jailed or even fired from your job is to compare Israel to Nazi Germany and Sharon to Hitler. I was under the impression we didn't know about the Jews and the camps until the war was pretty much over. I do actually think the quality of propaganda in Palestine is far superior to the quality in Nazi Germany. Gotta have respect for someone who manages to convince arabs that the Jews were responsible for 9/11. Most people in Nazi germany didn't quite believe what they were told in my opinion. Not the case is Palastine. Posted by: Poosh at January 31, 2004 05:19 PMPoosh, Actually Nelson I believe following reichskristallnacht Neville Chamberalin decided to bring over 10.000 Jews from Germany and offer them refuge; the Us was going to take in 20.000 but somehow Congress could not stomach the idea for some reason. There is now quite a good book "And The Policeman Smiled" which should help you update your knowledge on this matter. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005260
The first children's transport arrived in Harwich, Great Britain, on December 2, 1938, bringing about 200 children from a Jewish orphanage in Berlin. The last transport from Germany left in September 1939, just before World War II began. The last transport from the Netherlands left on May 14, 1940, the day that country surrendered to Germany.
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/cgjs/projects/kinder.htm Wolfgang Benz and Claudia Curio due to be published in German in July 2003 under the title Der Kindertransport 1938/9.Rettung und Integration by the Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. This book will include an article in which she outlines her provisional findings about the adaptation process, as reflected in autobiographical narratives by former Kindertransport children. An English-language version will be published in the American journal Shofar in April 2004.
In the first year of the pilot study Andrea Hammel will be responsible for planning a database of autobiographical resources by former 'Kindertransport' children. A wide-ranging call for information on autobiographical resources by former Kindertransport children will be launched in 2003. For more information on the project, please contact Andrea Hammel at the Centre for German-Jewish Studies. http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/holocaust/children_side4.html
She's one of the "kinder" - or children - talked about in the documentary, which details an act of heroism during Hitler's Jewish persecution: the rescuing of 10,000 Jewish children by the people of Great Britain. "Emotionally we're bonded," said Abraham-Podietz. "When something happens in our lives we call each other because we can talk so freely
Abraham-Podietz of suburban Philadelphia grew up in Germany and left for London in 1938 at age 11. That change in residence may have saved her from becoming one of the 1.5 million Jewish children murdered in the Holocaust. "Nobody wanted the Jews," said Abraham- Podietz, 74. "Nobody opened their gates, except Britain." But the world made little fuss until 1938 when a November persecution of the Jews (Kristallnacht) resulted in the burning of more than 1,000 synagogues, the destruction of about 7,500 businesses, the killing of 91 and the arrest of about 30,000 Jewish men who were sent to concentration camps. Afterward, the British Parliament agreed to take in German Jewish children, up to age 17, believing the dislocation would be temporary. The U.S. Congress considered a similar plan but it died in committee.
Children of the Kindertransport who, as mainly Jewish refugee children, had arrived in London’s Liverpool Street Station in 1938 and 1939, on 16th September 2003 gathered together once again at this main London railway terminus to unveil a commemorative statue dedicated to perpetuating the memory of their first arrival in such harrowing circumstances. Rescuer of many Czech Kinder, Sir Nicholas Winton, now in his 94th year, unveiled a plaque some 65 years after the event, thanking Britain for offering a home to 10,000 children whose parents desperately wanted to protect their children’s lives from Nazi persecution in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Two of the rescued Kinder, Harry Heber and Erich Reich, assisted Sir Nicholas in unveiling the bronze statue of a child refugee standing next to a giant transparent case containing some of the preciously few items of clothing, toys, family photographs and Kindertransport commemorative statue unveiled at Now Nelson and Charles, I know you wish to express heartfelt thanks to the people of the United Kingdom for their great act of human kindness........it would be just nice if once you did so rather than slander my country ad mauseam
"The first country to fight the nazis, btw, wasn't Britain, but Poland, and the Poles sure did more for Britain than vice-versa (the UK let them down, delivering them into Stalin's hands). And, though the Brits fought bravely the good fight, they obviously didn't do it for the Jews, did they? "
Had Lord Halifax succeeded in his attempts to undernine Churchill from 28th May, there would have been no war and Prime Minister Halifax together with King Edward VIII could have preserved the British Empire and Avraham Stern could have allied himself with Adolf Hitler as he tried so earnestly to do. Funny, had Churchill not survived the Halifax-Dahlerus Plot, the USSR would have disappeared and the USA would have been kept isolated from the Thousand Year Reich. Those 5 days in May 1940 when Churchill had to fight to retain power. Posted by: Timon at January 31, 2004 06:07 PM1933 - 1939 BRITAIN Admitted 75,000 Jews. 1939 - 1941 AMERICAN JEWISH JOINT DISTRIBUTION COMMITTEE (JDC or JOINT) And HICEM, the European affiliate of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, rescued approximately 30,000 European Jews. Despite this, or maybe because of this, the U.S. Office of censorship, in a memo dated March 1942, stated that they should be viewed with suspicion since they could be used by the Nazis to bring in spies. 1939 February 9, - June, WAGNER-ROGERS CHILD REFUGEE BILL (USA) Provoked by the events of Kristallnacht, the bill was proposed by New York Democratic Senator Robert F. Wagner, a German American, and Massachusetts Democratic Representative Edith Nourse Rogers. Its goal was to enable 20,000 German Jewish refugee children to enter the United States over a two-year period. The bill was toppled by the negative attitude of President Roosevelt, coupled with the anti- Semitism of members of Congress (especially Senator Robert Reynolds of North Carolina).
Set sail from Hamburg with 930 Jewish refugees with American quota permits and special permission to stay temporarily in Cuba. Cuban President Frederico Bru declared all but 30 of the permits worthless due to new regulations. Despite exhaustive efforts by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) and the depositing of half a million dollars in a Havana account, President Bru refused to budge. The U.S. also refused to take in any refugees and sent Coast Guard boats to prevent passengers from jumping overboard. After all efforts failed, The St. Louis was forced to return to Europe. The German Press gloated: "We say we don't want Jews while the democracies claim they are willing to receive them." A Gallup poll reported that 83 percent of Americans opposed the admission of a larger number of Jewish refugees.
http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/turtle/8/REFUGEES.htm
stimulated by the events of Kristallnacht, on February 9, 1939, Senator Robert Wagner of New York and Representative Edith Rogers of Massachusetts introduced identical bills in their respective houses of Congress to admit by special action 10,000 refugee children under 14 years of age, in 1939 and another 10,000 in 1940 to avoid labor opposition, the bill provided that the children would not be permitted to work and would join their parents as soon as safety elsewhere was assured the American Friends Service Committee, which volunteered their services, would organize the children's movements to the United States as well as their placement within 24 hours after the plan had become known, 4,000 American families had offered their homes to these children radio stations and newspapers were swamped with even more offers BUT a powerful group of isolationists and anti-Semites banded together and planned their strategy to prevent these bills from becoming law by April, when the Congressional hearing started, the conspirators against the Children's Rescue Bill were well organized Francis H. Kinnicutt represented thirty 'patriotic organizations united in the Allied Patriotic Societies' of which he was president these included the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Society of Mayflower Descendants, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Lord's Day Alliance of the United States, the Daughters of the Confederacy, and other isolationist organizations Kinnicutt spoke up quite openly, '...this is just part of a drive to go back to the condition when we were flooded with foreigners who tried to run the country on different lines from those laid down by the old stock...Strictly speaking, it is not a refugee bill at all, for by the nature of the case most of those admitted would be of the Jewish race' the was more activity on the part of those united to prevent the bill from becoming law--there was heavy lobbying in Congress Colonel John Taylor lobbied for the American Legion against the bill and in support of a bill by North Carolina Senator Robert Reynolds which would abolish all immigration to the United States for the next ten years Mrs. Agnes Waters, representing, as she claimed, the Widows of World War I veterans, testified, that if the Children's Rescue Bill should pass, the United States 'would be made helpless to guarantee our children their rights under the Constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...if this country is going to become the dumping ground for the persecuted minorities of Europe. The refugees...can never become loyal Americans.' because the lobbying in Congress was going well, those who supported the bill hoped that the President might make his influence felt Congresswoman O'Day of New York wrote to Mr. Roosevelt hoping to obtain a statement in favor of the bill but the President refused to become involved in a subject opposed not only by many Republicans but bitterly resented by the conservative Democrats of the solid South O'Day's letter forwarded to Mr. Roosevelt by his secretary carries on the margin in his own handwriting the notation" 'File - No action.' Mr. Pierrepoint Moffat, chief of the State Department's Division of European Affairs, reports in his diary, now in the National Archives, about a cocktail party which points out clearer than the official debates the true nature of the attitude of the insiders toward this rescue attempt Mrs. James Hougheling, wife of the all powerful Commissioner of Immigration said: 'The trouble with the Wagner-Rogers bill was that 20,000 children would all too soon grow up into 20,000 ugly adults.' as a result of such resistance, the bills never left the committee--the conspiracy of anti-Semites and isolationists succeeded in torpedoing the rescue bills [Perl, William R. The Holocaust Conspiracy: An International Policy of Genocide. New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1989] Nazis pressed for emigration of Jews even after 1939 (in 1940, 36,000 went to theto the US) after 1940, the US refused to receive any more Jewish emigres US unwilling to make exceptions to immigration laws to accommodate Jewish refugees "During the twelve years of Nazi terror, from 1933 to 1945, while the United States accepted more than 200,000 Jewish refuges; Palestine, 125,000; embattled Britain, 70,000; Argentina, 50,000; penurious Brazil, 27,000; distant China, 25,000; tiny Bolivia and Chile, 14,000 each, Canada found room for fewer than 5,000." Western Europe--more receptive than the US, despite the fact that the latter had greater resources England accepted some Jewish children also some illegal migration; the most accepting country was Belgium, the least benign was Switzerland, where the Swiss police chief asked the Germans to stamp Jewish passports so that they could be identified and sent back nations in Europe were more amenable in spite of fewer resources between 1933 and 1939 the US took in 57,000 refugees, England 50,000 some who went to these countries became refugees a second time in 1940 36,000 Jews entered the US--a small proportion of the Jews who wanted to escape from Europe
No, your country didn't fight for the Jews nor did it have any obligation to do it, but then, don't depict it as more virtuous than it has been. On the other hand, it solemnly agreed to help the Jews to build a home in Palestine, that's why the Uk was granted the mandate to begin with and that's why it managed to take away from the French territories it had agreed to give them in the Sykes-Picot agreement. And then, your country did the best to close the doors of Palestine to Jewish refugees. Why exactly? To please the Arabs. 75.000 Jews allowed in Britain who were under the immediate threat of extermination. Fine. And later 1,5 million or more Muslims who were in what kind of danger exactly? At least a quarter of the Jews who died in the Holocaust could have find a safe haven in Palestine, but your country close its doors to them. Were they an immediate problem? Curiously, in spite of the Stern gang, tens of thousands of Jews volunteered to serve in the British army during WW2 but most were rejected. How many Arabs fought alongside your countrymen in Tobruk, Sicily, Monte Casino? What about the tactical and strategic help given to the Arabs against the Jews, what about the Arab Legion and Glubb Pasha? England wasn't a genocidal facistic nation and, as I've said, fought the nazis bravelly, but, in the end, when it came to the Jews, it was less helpful than neutral and, in Palestine, less neutral than an actual enemy. But no hard feelings, because ultimately the Palestinian Jews, half a million of them, defeated a British force there about the size of the allied force nowadays in Iraq (with Czech and Russian weapons), in spite of the UK's desire to deport the Jews back to Germany, Poland etc (as Hamas would like to do today). Obviously, what Britain failed to do is not in the reach of the Palestinians. Oh, and Shanghai alone gave refuge to more Jews than Britain. The Americans weren't helpful either, of course, but then what high ground do you Anglo-Saxons on each side of the Atlantic have to criticize each other? Even France, rightfully despised as it is, gave refuge, before being occupied, to more Jews than the UK. You had no temporary place for even 100.000 Jews, now let's see how you cope with a couple of million of Muslims. I don't envy you but neither do I pity you. Good luck. Posted by: nelson at February 1, 2004 01:31 AM"in spite of the UK's desire to deport the Jews back to Germany, Poland etc (" Hardly, Britain did not control Poland, Stalin did; nor did it control what became Germany in 1949; and was merely zones in 1947 with 100.000 refugees a week entering the zones and Dachau being used as a refugee camp. I think it is simply amazing that Great Britain suvived and that it could put something of Europe back together in 1945.....I doubt the politicians today could manage it. Posted by: Romulus at February 1, 2004 10:51 AMPolitically irresponsible, despotic, capitalist organisations now exert themselves to steal real power from democratic bodies elected by and for the peoples of humanity ---the wild farcical exuberance of the electoral theft that occurred in the US in November 2000 being merely the most palpable instance of a coup d’État permanent. Such misanthropic conglomerates infest the Troika (Europe, USA and Japan) where local peoples undergo massive brainwashing, near-irreparable subservience, socio-cultural rape and identity loss. Capital and power concentration was rendered possible as a result of the recent IT revolution. It is going to be enhanced even further through human life merchandisation as the effect of human genome privatisation and human body patentability. “Market” absolutism has outsmarted fascism and communism. For “market” dictatorship is hard to sell even to ingenuous victims, marketocrats are wild about the globalisation buzzword ---referring to a process that is, however, neither included in nor linked with marketisation as worldwide economic integration precedented “free”-“market” dogma. As the fantastic Iraqi imposture shows, ultraconservative economism is deception and thievery. The unmitigatedly anachronistic notion of colonial possession is overtly looked down on and substituted for an incongruous mix of compassionate, fuzzy, maudlin op-ed philippics spouted at home and coarse plundering on the spot. Marketocrats want to extirpate natural resources and deracinate popular culture from sovereign territories. Nature and culture are not separate spheres: mankind is their porous border. That comes out right ! Marketocracy have plans for them too: mass unemployment, underemployment, transient employability, precarity, overexploitation, exclusion and clochardisation. Even children are the object of much solicitude on the part of corporate advocates of global economic liberty: no less than 300 million minors are handed over to bestial greediness. For market ayatollahs, juvenile workforce is a simple adjustment variable. As is financial criminality caused by the business sector, big banks, tax heavens and mafias. Criminal economic “freedom” yields compassionately-conservative thugs a good trillion euros per year: more than the cumulative GDP of one third of humanity, more than 12 % of US GDP. The extravagant merchandisation of words and things, bodies and souls, plus nature and culture is leading to more discrepancies. In 1960 people living in the richest countries (20 % of world population) earned 30 times as much as did the 20 % poorest in the world. In 1995 the income of the highest 20 % of the same well-off group was then 82 times higher than the lowest 20 %. In more than 70 countries, the income per capita has fallen to what it was 20 years ago. Today 3 billion people (half humanity) live with less than 2 euros a day. Admittedly the current affluence of goods never happened before anywhere on earth. Yet homelessness and hunger are on the rise. One third of the 4 ˝ billion people living in developing countries are not provided with drinking water. One fifth of children are not absorbing enough calories or proteins. Two billion people ---one third of humanity--- are anaemic. According to a study by the Organisation of the United Nations (OUN), a 4-% tax levied on the wealth accumulated by the 225 world-richest people would be enough to meet basic needs ---food, drinking water, education and health--- of the entire human population. Thirteen billion euros only are wanted to meet sanitary and nutritional needs of humanity. Every year, Unitedstatians and Europeans spend 13 billion euros in… perfumes. Even solid organisations such as states may be overthrown by marketocrats. The irony lies in the fact the removal of weakest states caused by marketocracy brings about the outbreak of religiocracy, a rival to ultraconservatism. Marketocrats and religiocrats want the same world. They are competitors, not enemies. Collective-imaginary metaphrases like bin Laden and Bush are quite interchangeable. Competition between “economic” and “religious” bigots has caused the proliferation of countless, ominous lawless areas. Novel ungovernable chaotic entities surface. Barbarous realities backfire to the detriment of the pseudo-postmodern sycophants of modelled economism. Ivory towers, too, can fall… Romulus You need to read The Mystery Of Capitalism by Hernando de Soto and The Road to Serfdom by F A Hayek. Then you will see (from Hayek) that you cannot go around inflicting things like 4% tax on groups of nations without being a dictator. You will also see (from de Soto) that even if you do raise the money, it will make no difference to those people whose plight you espouse so passionately, due to their klepocratic rulers. if you have doubts about this last assertion fill in a map of the world with highlights for both your poverty concerns and those countries where there is nothing approaching a liberal democracy. The overlap will be almost perfect. Seriously, give those two a go. I think you will be interested by your own reactions. Posted by: Hugo Williams at February 1, 2004 09:22 PMRomulus, There is a high correlation between liberal democracies and the practice of capitalism. Seige economies based on totalitarianism always eventually collapse under the weight of their own incredibly ineffecient and expensive bureacracies, state-owned industries and agencies of state control. Democracy and the mixed economies of western countries are very far from ideal but they are infinitely preferable to totalitarian regimes. Just look at the positive changes in Eastern Europe since 1989 and in Iberia since 1974 for some practical examples of positive change in which free market and democratic reforms have improved the lives of citizens. Posted by: David at February 1, 2004 09:45 PMRomulus. The archbishop should be defrocked! Shame, shame, shame on him. Lili Posted by: Lilith at February 2, 2004 01:48 AMDavid. David and Hugo Williams, if you refer to the gibberish above about "Politically irresponsible, despotic, capitalist organisations now exert themselves to steal real power from democratic bodies elected by and for the peoples of humanity ---the wild farcical exuberance of the electoral theft that occurred in the US in November 2000 being merely the most palpable instance of a coup d’État permanent."
So I am sorry to have woken you all up for something that has no connection whatsoever with me. Posted by: Romulus at February 2, 2004 01:05 PMIn my opinion we cannot expect the Muhammeds to behave like human beings with others until they start respecting their own life. To use the example of the death cult's suicide stoning this week. Those that worship Muhammed as a god clearly do not respect human life and consider sacrafice of human beings as a "great and holy" aspect of their religion. Until American Muslims are forced to abandon this wicked and subhuman aspect of their cult we can expect many more John Muhammed, Muhammed Hedayets and other acts of sharia. Posted by: The Law Student at February 2, 2004 02:39 PMRomulus, "I did not post this" I thought it was not like your usual postings. Mmm...someone slse has therefore posted using your handle. How irritating. Let's hope it was a one-off. Posted by: David at February 2, 2004 03:23 PMThe Arshebishop of Canterbury is clearly doing his best to elminate any respect anyone had for that once esteemed position. The man has contemptible ideas on the nature of terrorism, capitalism, despotism and globililisation. He is more concerned with keeping Islamic leaders and criminals happy than he is increasing his ever decreasing flock. The wretch should resign as AoC and go into proper politics. No doubt he would be wanting to run for Galloway's fringe party. I think he would probably fit right in. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at February 2, 2004 03:25 PMDavid, "I thought it was not like your usual postings. Mmm...someone slse has therefore posted using your handle. How irritating. Let's hope it was a one-off." Yes indeed. The site seems to be flooded with stoned idiots recently. They should all be shot! Posted by: Romulus at February 4, 2004 06:26 AMHe above posting is from the troll-impostor too BTW Posted by: Romulus at February 4, 2004 06:43 AMI'm interested as to how Ms Phillips' very busy web master can so quickly delete posts which are deemed likely to "embarrass" Ms Phillips (I received an email specifically stating that I was not to post anything which might embarrass her: I was tempted to send it to her but then realised that if she felt constrained from posting anything which migh embarras herself, she would have nothing to post at all) but do nothing about the race hate posts such as that from "the law student". I'm sorry - that's not totally fair. If you post something which is deemed to be anti-Semitic (see also, critical of Israeli policy) it may well disappear. But if you wish to post race hate directed towards Arabs or Muslims (and those who post such rubbish seem unable to distinguish between those two groups or at least can't decide which they hate most) then you have found the right place for you here. Encouraged my Melanie Phillips' barely disguised contempt and hate for the Palestinians, there's a warm welcome here for the Islamophobic, Arab bashing dozy brained low life to whom she most appeals. Posted by: Brendan at February 6, 2004 12:23 AM |
