Friday, June 01, 2007

Baroness Cox: Britain is 'deeply infiltrated by radical Islam'

Baroness Cox is not only a crusader for all manner of admirable global humanitarian issues, but she has profound insight and a pleasing manner of plain speaking when it comes to ‘Islamism’. Touring Israel, she has warned that ‘radicalised British Muslims continue to pose a security threat to Israel’, and that both countries should ‘be concerned’. She further states: ‘Britain has been deeply infiltrated’; it has ‘become a base for training and teaching militant Islam’; and that ‘radical groups are multiplying and continuing to recruit’.

In saying this, Baroness Cox fulfils the role of 647 MPs, and shames them. She makes the case single-handedly for the perpetuation of an ‘unelected’ House of Lords. While members of the Commons need constantly to look over their shoulders for votes, the Lords are not so fettered, and are thereby liberated to speak out prophetically even at the risk of offence. The sadness is that the Bishops have abdicated all spiritual responsibility in this regard, yet the Baroness does quote one anonymous ‘senior bishop’ as saying that ‘most of our educational institutions have been infiltrated’, and that ‘university campuses were prime recruitment grounds for Islamist groups’.

Commenting on the plans of Tablighi Jamaat for a mega-mosque in London, she observes the symbolism: ‘It dominates over its surroundings, which submit to it.’ Indeed, for Islam is about submission until the religious and the political are one and the same. Jihad is waged until the dar-al-Harb has become the dar-al-Islam, and to achieve this the Mohammedans are reminded that their political loyalty lies not with the country in which they happen to live, but with the worldwide community – the Umma – and their religious obligation is to bring all under Shari’a law.

And so the Baroness concludes:

We need to wake up, draw a line in the sand, and say enough is enough… Britain's cultural and spiritual heritage are under threat.

Yet despite this warning, in a virtual affirmation of the deafening silence of the Church of England on the matter, it appears that the Vatican has now decided to support Turkey in its quest to join the European Union. It would not only be the EU’s most populous Muslim nation, but also the EU’s largest nation with a potential voting weight exceeding that of Germany. While Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was implacably opposed to Turkish accession, Pope Benedict XVI is making distinctly conciliatory overtures. The EU and Turkey simply have to agree ‘fundamental rules of cohabitation’ in order to build ‘a common future’ through ‘mutual dialogue’.

This is manifestly a shift in the Vatican's position, and Cranmer is beginning to wish the previous judgement had been announced ex cathedra. All talk of different cultural roots and divergent theologies has been silenced. All considerations of history and geography are now set aside. All concerns over the rights of religious minorities and religious freedom are now subsumed to the country's European path.

Cranmer just hopes and prays that the Bishop of Rome knows what he’s doing…

87 Comments:

Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

'While members of the Commons need constantly to look over their shoulders for votes, the Lords are not so fettered, and are thereby liberated to speak out prophetically even at the risk of offence.'

Indeed. I believe Your Grace has summed up the problem with democracy well. Parliament has its head so badly turned in search of votes that it is often looking in the wrong direction on many issues. Perhaps Plato was right in advocating Philosopher Kings.

Though I do think Your Grace, that you move too easily from the argument on the danger of Islamists to concluding that any Muslim state should not be part of the EU. Indeed, if I wanted to be controversial, I could suggest that we might even have more radicalised Muslims than Turkey. If we did, would this mean that Britain too, should not be part of the EU?

Snuffy

1 June 2007 at 10:08  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"Mohammedans are reminded that their political loyalty lies not with the country in which they happen to live..."

Well Cranmer, sometimes it becomes slightly difficult to express loyalty to one's country when the police officers (who are there to protect you), break the front door of your house and shoot you. Why? For having a beard. Where's the justice in that?

Whilst I don't agree with some of the activities that go on in university campuses which are largely Wahabi dominated, I can understand why many Muslims in this country for one, might be getting slightly p****d off about becoming constant media and government targets.

"their religious obligation is to bring all under Shari’a law".

Indeed so that is. Whats your point? Are you telling me that as a Christian you don't feel it your duty to guide those whom you feel to have gone astray to the 'true Christian path of enlightenment?' I mean your God died for mankind right? You can't just leave people to worship wrong deities when you've been told to spread the true message of God. So why would you expect any different from the Muslims. We also believe it to be an obligation to spread the truth.

Of course you may argue that whilst you spread your message with peace, we spread it through violence, right? Nonsense! America, a Christian dominating country has done anything but form peace in the middle east. Israel, your Jewish brothers, are doing anything but making peace. When an 8 year old child is made to go through check-points facing men with guns in their hands, each time he wants to go to school or go and pray in the Mosque, that life becomes terrifying for him, not peaceful.

I'm not saying Muslims are doing a great job either, but try to look at it both ways. Or is that too hard for you to contemplate?

1 June 2007 at 10:15  
Blogger Thomas B said...

Miss Jelly Bean.

You confuse the actions of the United States government and the actions of the leaders of Western Christianity. The United States of America does not behave the way it does to spread the Good News of Christianity - indeed, that would be opposed to the very basis of the US Constitution.

On the other hand, those Christian leaders who advocate the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ have also made clear their intolerance of violence as a means of spreading the gospel - all of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Rowan Williams have made that clear.

One of the most ironic aspects of the controversy over the Pope's comments in Regensburg was comments along the lines of "claiming that Islam is not peaceful will just lead to violence".

You are failing to distinguish between the secular and the religious dimensions of Western culture - and to bring this back to his Grace's point, this is possibly why Turkey is suitable for membership of the EU - it is a country full of Muslims which has still managed to recognise the distinction between the two realms.

1 June 2007 at 10:51  
Anonymous Salami Lick'em said...

A couple of points Miss Jelly Bean. I loath the government. The vast majority of MPs should be made to walk the plank. This however has nothing to do with my love for this country. The government are not the country, they are a small (and incredibly irritating) part of it. Also, they can be removed. To hate an entire country and everyone in it (other than fellow Muslims) does not stem from bad governance but racist and cultural prejudice.

If Muslims don't like being media and government targets, perhaps they could do a little more to sort out 'extremism' rather than sitting back and waiting for the world to submit to Allah.

Given your view on religious wars, if you don't want to become a casualty why live behind enemy lines?

Let’s face it. In the UK we have established equal rights, embraced science and have produced a reasonably grown up attitude to law and order. What other reaction do you expect when you propose to degrade women to the level of animals, base laws on a delusional paedophile pirate and take us all back to the 7th century.

Get. A . Grip.

1 June 2007 at 10:51  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Thomas, shall I remind you of Bush's reason to go to war in Afghanistan? "Because God told me to". Oh and by the way, Bush is a committed Christian. He didn't seem to distinguish between his religious beliefs and the laws of the secular state he lives in, did he?

"This however has nothing to do with my love for this country".

Maybe not for you, but tell me. Were you ever shot at 3 in the morning by a police officer who thought you to be a terrorist?

The governmnet is not the country, you say? I think you're the one who needs to GET. A .GRIP. Incase you didn't realise, the governmnet runs the country. Besides, I never said Muslims hate the whole country, as you quite wrongly put it. I said it sometimes becomes difficult to express loyalty to a country that fails to protect you. That doesn't mean that Muslims prejudge. If anything, it's the governmnet who prejudge. They're the ones who ordered that police man to shoot a man just because he had a beard. Excellent target. Fits right in the category. STOP STEREOTYPING!

p.s. cranmer, I would shave that beard off instantly if I was you.

1 June 2007 at 11:12  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"If Muslims don't like being media and government targets, perhaps they could do a little more to sort out 'extremism' rather than sitting back and waiting for the world to submit to Allah".

Yeh and perhaps you can do us a favour and stop spreading crap about Islam which isn't true. Perhaps you could tell your Israeli democratic brothers to stop taking over Palestinian land and go back to Germany were they belong.

You people think Isreal is a democracy. Ha! What a pathetic assumption. Thanks to the loving and caring Israelies, so many Olive trees have been cut in Palestine just to make their stupid wall. Now the Palestinians have been put out of business because all their food has gone to waste, and trees that were planted there for so many generations have been destroyed just so the Israelies can make their ugly wall. Some democracy! make the people starve to death. No wonder Palestinians need international aid. The Israelies made sure of that didn't they.

Oh and one more favour, if it's not too much for you. Could you tell the kind and compassionate Israelies to let the Palestinians have a bit of water to drink especially in the summer and not take it all for themselves, since israelies have control over the water and don't seem to be distributing it in a sharing manner.

Tahnkyou ever so much.

1 June 2007 at 11:25  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Miss Jelly Bean, I think I understand that you are angry. His Grace does not mean to argue that the Palestinian situation is not shocking. This fact is self-evident. I understand Cranmer to be rightly critical of extremist muslims - in particular of those in this country. Why a young muslim boy in Leeds should feel so outraged by race relations in this country that he should choose to end his own life and take the lives of others is just as shocking as the treatment the Palestinians receive at the hand of some Israelis.

Can we not be both critical of the Israeli government and of extremist Islam?

Snuffy

1 June 2007 at 12:01  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Snuffy, let me make one thing very clear. I am completely against suicide bombing and I will never defend people who go around bombing and killing innocent people.

"His Grace does not mean to argue that the Palestinian situation is not shocking".

Honestly, I don't think 'his grace' could care less about the Palestinians. Nor do I think he finds any of it shocking.

1 June 2007 at 12:11  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Perhaps we are seeing Miss JB in her true colours.

1 June 2007 at 12:48  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

I've never concealed my 'true' beliefs. I don't see any reason to. I'm sure most on this blog are aware of my views in general.

1 June 2007 at 13:16  
Blogger Thomas B said...

Thomas, shall I remind you of Bush's reason to go to war in Afghanistan? "Because God told me to". Oh and by the way, Bush is a committed Christian. He didn't seem to distinguish between his religious beliefs and the laws of the secular state he lives in, did he?

The original point was about advancing the message of Christianity versus advancing the message of Islam, and the use of violence therein. You are still confusing the gospel of Jesus Christ with the narrower political and economic interests of the United States. Bush saying "God told me to go to war" (which I believe is not something he actually said) is not the same thing as advancing the gospel through violence. The purpose of the invasion of Iraq was not to make Iraqis Christian.

1 June 2007 at 13:18  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

So tell me, what was the purpose for the invasion in Iraq? To get rid of Saddam? O.k. job done. What next. Oh yeh, weapons of mass distruction. Sorry. never found any. So again, remind me of this greater purpose to invade iraq. Ummm... to form peace in the region of course. Let's see how much peace you've made.

an estimation of 100000 civilians dead in Iraq.

mass bloodshed and killings everywhere

little children whimpering for their parents and screaming in agony with their limbs having been blown off.

Has the greater purpose been achieved? Nope. Still no peace. Oh well! I guess we'll have to keep trying won't we. Keep killing innocent people until there is peace, because that is the way of the true Christian, George Bush.

1 June 2007 at 13:36  
Blogger Thomas B said...

an estimation of 100000 civilians dead in Iraq.

Most of whom were Muslims killed by fellow Muslims.

1 June 2007 at 13:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are we to assume Mis JB would have advised the West to leave Saddam in place? Or is that the 100000 civilian deaths to which she refers? Methinks she playeth the man and not the ball.

1 June 2007 at 13:46  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

"Most of whom were Muslims killed by fellow Muslims".

so the western media tells us. Did you see any Muslim plant a bomb in a Mosque with your own eyes, to kill Muslims of the opposite sect? How can you be so sure that these arn't US ordered assassinations to spark sectarian fighting amongst Iraqies? (Now you might think Jelly's getting brainwashed with all these conspiracy theories.)


Before the war in iraq, Muslims didn't make any distinctions between the Sunnis and the Shia. They married into each other's families and lived as neighbours. Of course the distinction could be seen in the political parties, but that's the politicians, not the public in general.

1 June 2007 at 14:03  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Well Cranmer, sometimes it becomes slightly difficult to express loyalty to one's country when the police officers (who are there to protect you), break the front door of your house and shoot you. Why? For having a beard. Where's the justice in that?


Really ? Maybe he should have been less obstructive......but looking at PC Stephen Oake deceased one might discern reasons

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2694765.stm

Dc Oake, a committed Christian and regular churchgoer, joined GMP in July 1984. But the job was already in his blood. His father Robin, 65, was Chief Constable on the Isle of Man and before that, a deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester Police.

Dc Oake, the father of three teenage children, was stabbed to death by Algerian-born Bourgass when he went to the aid of colleagues during an immigration operation. Police did not expect to find Bourgass, then wanted in connection with the discovery of a "ricin factory" in London.

Bourgass tried to escape when he realised that police had identified him. The officer died of multiple wounds to his chest and upper body. Four other officers were injured. Bourgass was later convicted of the murder and a conspiracy involving ricin.

1 June 2007 at 14:06  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Did you see any Muslim plant a bomb in a Mosque with your own eyes

I have never seen a mosque blow up with my own eyes.....I am surprised that you have !

1 June 2007 at 14:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Before the war in iraq, Muslims didn't make any distinctions between the Sunnis and the Shia

Absolute rubbish. The Sunnis ran the country and the Shias were butchered in the South - they received no electricity and men like Al-Sadr were murdered by Saddam

Iraq invaded Shia Iran

Do you write fairy stories ?

1 June 2007 at 14:09  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

Like I said Voyager, there were distinctions made amongst the politicians and I admit, the regime under Saddam was not just. But looking at it now, you can see that America hasn't made any difference, if anything, the conditions have become worse. So exactly what have you achieved by this invasion?

1 June 2007 at 14:32  
Blogger Thomas B said...

Did you see any Muslim plant a bomb in a Mosque with your own eyes, to kill Muslims of the opposite sect? .

No, but then I never saw a US soldier killing an Iraqi civilian with my own eyes - but I'm willing to accept it might have happened.


How can you be so sure that these arn't US ordered assassinations to spark sectarian fighting amongst Iraqies? (Now you might think Jelly's getting brainwashed with all these conspiracy theories.)


Either that or you're just a kook. I am taking the reports of the media (which includes Al Jazerra by the way) that the bombs in Iraq are being planted by one bunch of Muslims to blow up a different set of Muslims.

1 June 2007 at 14:43  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

"Commenting on the plans of Tabighi Jannat for a mega-mosque in London"

Ummmm... are you referring to the 'Tablighi Jamaat'?

1 June 2007 at 15:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I returned to Britain 13 years ago after living overseas for quite a long time. Some changes pleased me, some horrified me. I remember telling my wife, who is foreign-born, that we had admitted a fifth column of 1,5 million people whose primary allegiance was not to this country. A religion that preaches dominance and the destruction of unbelievers is an uncomfortable neighbour.
Victor, NW Kent

1 June 2007 at 15:41  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Miss Jelly Bean, really you must slow down with the anger. There is some truth in what you say but it is lost amongst other seemingly mad statements. And no one can possibly take you seriously. You can't just deny what everyone knows to be true - that muslims kill other muslims.

When Thomas B says that the purpose of the invasion of Iraq was not to make Iraqis into Christians, he is right. This does not necessarily mean that he believes the war in Iraq to have been a good thing.

I am not sure I understand why Voyager has mentioned the killing of the policeman as this does not seem relevant to this argument.

And where is Cranmer in all of this? Your Grace, are you not going to tell us what you think? Otherwise we are left guessing.

Miss Jelly Bean, I'm sorry to sound so patronising - I don't mean to be. But you really must address the precise point of the argument, or else you simply appear to be quite mad.

1 June 2007 at 15:50  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

I'm sorry everyone. I did get quite 'mad' there didn't I. Ummm,I'm not too sure what we're arguing here now because we've moved on to so many different topics (essentially israel and Iraq I guess). Well, I feel calm now but all the energies drained out of me so I don't think I'm going to continue with the discussion for now. But do continue. I'm sure you'll do a fine job without me, as you did in Cranmers pulpit. Bye Bye!

1 June 2007 at 16:25  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Like I said Voyager, there were distinctions made amongst the politicians and I admit, the regime under Saddam was not just. But looking at it now, you can see that America hasn't made any difference, if anything, the conditions have become worse. So exactly what have you achieved by this invasion?


I hope this invasion has scared the Arab world sufficiently....we can turn any one of their tinpot dictatorships upside down and leave them to fight it out.

I wonder if Syria ever considers how fragile Alawite power is, or if Saudi Arabia, or even Iran consider what can happen to their dictatorships ?

The natural state of the Arab world is what is happening in Iraq. The only part that has a semblance of stability is Kurdistan - and they aren't Arabs.

We have invaded countries before but few have fragmented as readily - Britain invaded Iraq in 1941 and threatened to do so in 1962 when Iraq threatened Kuwait.....in 1941 the Iraqis staged a Nazi coup in Baghdad organised by Ribbentrop which was crushed.


You are right that the Anglo-Americans were far too soft in dealing with matters, but the object lesson should be plain for Iran - regimes come and go - theirs will too....but it is the petrol rationing that will destroy them

1 June 2007 at 16:28  
Blogger EUBanana said...

It seems to me that much of MJB's comments can be countered with 'two wrongs do not make a right'.

As for Iraq, really, its not about religion but geopolitics, it seems to me, with religion as its pawn. The reason why Iraq is such a bloodbath is because Iran is making it thus. The reason Iran is making it thus is to improve its position vis a vis other Middle Eastern countries, and poke the eye of the Great Satan while they are at it.

Certainly when the US first invaded Iraq the rank and file had rather naively good motives for doing so. Indeed it seemed to me like Americans were convinced that Iraq was going to turn into Minnesota overnight when they brought democracy. Unfortunately for them, a combination of shysters like Chalabi and evil men like the rulers of Iran and Syria have upset the apple cart. It should be /them/, in my opinion, who attract the opprobrium, not so much the United States. The US has certainly made mistakes but the initial mistakes, at least, seemed to be ones of unrealistic optimism for Iraqi democracy. All the advice we Brits seemed to give them was how to manage another imperial satrapy, divide and conquer methods, keep the Baathist army on side to keep the others down, etc. The US, bless, thought that was cynical. Maybe we Brits were right in that what we advised would have got the job done better (I am inclined to think so, myself) but still, it's hard to fault the US for not being cynical enough.

and as for Israel, isn't the Israeli PM an Arab? I am no friend of Israel to be honest (a nation founded by terrorism - not like Irgun and Lehi were boy scouts were they) and mass immigration in a very small timescale, its practically a colonial society it seems to me - but that said, the Israelis are a democracy, have been living there for generations now so it's too late unless you believe in punishing for the sins of the fathers, and compared to the tinpot dictators, barbarian kleptocracies and near-anarchies they live nearby they are practically saints. The Palestinians here are as much the pawns of other Middle Eastern regional powers as the Iraqis are.

1 June 2007 at 16:33  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

You say old dubbya was instructed by God to go to war in Afghanistan "Because God told me to" you say, actually you misquoted the alleged statement but never mind that now. I ask you of all the bloggs to choose from which is the least likely that you would get away with such a blatant attempt at taqiyya, or is it kitman, its very confusing to understand which form of lying is permitted to non-believers and in what circumstances, perhaps you could enlighten us on this

Anyway this story was first reported in the UK by the BBC/Guardian and then picked up by the Mirror, Independent and all the other news rags out there. It originated with a senior Palestinian politician Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian Foreign Minister at the time, he claimed JW said it to him, well it must be true as it came for a Palestinian politician, no hidden agendas or taqiyya/kitman there then. The White House has repeatedly denied this story but we believe the Palestinians don’t we, because they don’t lie, only Bush lies.

Now I don’t have any particularly liking for JW, I didn’t support this war at the start and I don’t now, I don’t think it is any of our business but I do know who are the more faithful and trusted allies for the UK and it isn’t Europe. The west should get out and leave the peace loving Mohammedans to butcher each other if that’s what they want to do; it seems to be the predominant Islamic method of solving all matters of dispute.

As for ‘The Wall’, I’d rather be behind one than have a bunch of murderous bombers free to wander around blowing up me and mine at will. That some of the potential bombers families/supporters/sympathisers loose an olive tree or two is irrelevant.

1 June 2007 at 16:43  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Iran is out to attain hegemony over the Middle East as Cyrus and Darius once did. What we are seeing is Iranian Neo-Imperialism just as Bin Laden is a Neo-Imperialist.

Fuelled by high oil prices the basket cases countries of the world reach out to think they can grasp power and each will fail because they have nothing but oil to sustain burgeoning populations who are forced ever-deeper into poverty.

1 June 2007 at 18:08  
Blogger Cranmer said...

And where is Cranmer in all of this? Your Grace, are you not going to tell us what you think? Otherwise we are left guessing.

Indeed.

1 June 2007 at 18:40  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"I hope this invasion has scared the Arab world sufficiently....we can turn any one of their tinpot dictatorships upside down and leave them to fight it out".

So that's the greater purpose of the West. To spread terror, invade countries, leave them in horrific conditions, remove the dictatorship and take over themselves.

1 June 2007 at 19:12  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

"That some of the potential bombers families/supporters/sympathisers loose an olive tree or two is irrelevant".

Well I wouldn't have complained so much Recusant, if these were only Olive trees planted in Palestinian back yards for their amusement. The Palestininans use their olives and food they grow as a source of income. They are left out of business now that their land has been taken away from them.

Even if I was to agree with you that building the wall was important for Israeli protection. Should it now not become an obligation for the Israelies to provide for those whom they have taken land from, and have no other way to provide for their families?

1 June 2007 at 19:27  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

Miss jelly bean said "Yeh and perhaps you can do us a favour and stop spreading crap about Islam which isn't true. Perhaps you could tell your Israeli democratic brothers to stop taking over Palestinian land and go back to Germany were they belong."

I don’t like saying things like this but your comment here disgusts me. It has been said that when we loose control of ourselves our true character is displayed. What a horrid thing to say and what makes me mad is that no one seems to have picked up on this.
The holocaust that claimed most of my ancestors was a barbaric event incited by racism that Jews have had to suffer for hundreds of years. And yet for all of this we don’t make a big fuss and complain. All we wanted was our own land and an identity.
We didn’t start this conflict. Murderous terrorists backed by Islam set their eyes on a seemingly weak nation and sought to take it from them. The armies of the Arab world descended on them on two different occasions but despite all of this we survived thanks to the arm of Yahweh.
Your spiteful comments only serve to lower the image of Muslims many of whom are very nice people.
Israelis live in fear every day of being blasted to pieces by a crazed Palestinians who having been groomed from birth have got it into their heads that deliberately killing innocents is a gateway to paradise!
I don’t expect peace in Israel but I would like people to stop voicing their racist ideas here.

1 June 2007 at 20:04  
Anonymous Voyager said...

So that's the greater purpose of the West. To spread terror, invade countries, leave them in horrific conditions, remove the dictatorship and take over themselves.

Why take over ? We've been there before because the Ottomans decided to wage war on the British Empire, France, Russia, USA and fight with Germany and Austria in WWI.

The problems of the Middle East and The Balkans were caused by the Turks who invaded Asia Minor in 1071AD and took over the Levant and the whole of The Hejaz and the Balkans.#

Britain and France simply played pooper-scooper cleaning up the mess of the defeated Ottomans at Sevres in 1919.

We don't want these countries we just want them to organise proper government but they are congenitally unable to do so.

1 June 2007 at 20:58  
Anonymous Voyager said...

and go back to Germany were they belong.

Your history is very poor....otherwise you would know how stupid that comment really is.

It does sound rather like "Britain For The British" though which I suppose you wear on your T-Shirt and wave on your banner

1 June 2007 at 21:00  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

דָנִיֵּאל

Did I upset you? Were my comments to disgusting and spiteful for you to tolerate. Oh well! I was wondering whether you'd ever comment, being of Jewish origin as you've previously claimed.

You said, "All we wanted was our own land and an identity". Fair enough. Go buy land if you want some. Stop INVADING other people's land. And are you sure that's all you want? Don't Jews also want to break down the Dome of the Rock and build thier synagogue there? (Do correct me if I'm wrong).

Nothing stupid about my comment, Voyager. A lack of understanding from your part though. I never said that Jews should go back to Germany because that's their historic homeland. I said it because that's the country they were thrown out off, so they have the right to go back to their homes. That doesn't give them the right to go invade other's land though.

1 June 2007 at 21:54  
Anonymous judith said...

Miss JB

Though I'm a Jew, I think the creation of the State of Israel was a huge and disastrous error.

HOWEVER - Muslim sects have been slaughtering each other for centuries, long before Israel gave cause for further grievances. Look at the Ismailis, otherwise known as Assassins, and look at Fatah and Hamas in Palestine today.

Christian sects happily slaughtered each other for centuries too, but they seem to have grown out of it - wonder how long it will take Islam to stop using murder as a means of arguing for or against the Caliphate?

1 June 2007 at 22:27  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

Hitherto, you have been a most congenial and entertaining communicant. Indeed, you have shone a light of intelligence which has done Islam proud, and made some upon His Grace's blog seriously consider your perspectives.

However, your recent posts have displayed an ignorant, embittered, insensitive and offensive streak, which may have been latent from the outset. To offend Mr דָנִיֵּאל with your holocaust gibes is unacceptable. Would you please either revert to expressions of respect and tolerance, or leave. You are quite free to make your religio-political points, and to make them forcefully, but you are not free to make ad hominem attacks, and your tone has become offensive. Doubtless this is also the fault of George Bush.

His Grace has absolutely no tolerance of your manner of invective, and prefers intelligent and erudite discussion. You are free to disagree vehemently, but you are not free to gratuitiously aggaravate or undiscerningly irritate any upon His Grace's blog. An apology is in order, and if you are a Mohammedan with an ounce of submission to humility, who cares one iota for the worldwide perception of your faith, it will be forthcoming. If not, please, in the name of God, just go. The world of intelligent religio-political debate is all the better for your departure.

1 June 2007 at 22:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I said it because that's the country they were thrown out off,

Your stupidity seems to be boundless or don't you learn any European history in your establishment....you are seemingly poorly educated.

No lack of understanding on my part either - simply disgust at your profound ignorance and asocial behaviour.

1 June 2007 at 22:56  
Anonymous The Clarendon Code said...

Though I'm a Jew, I think the creation of the State of Israel was a huge and disastrous error.

which time around ? You were, I take it happy with Judah ?

1 June 2007 at 22:58  
Anonymous Colin said...

"Turkey is suitable for membership of the EU - it is a country full of Muslims which has still managed to recognise the distinction between the two realms."

Only by the dictatorship of the Turkish army which hardly is in agreement with democracy as we understand it. Add to this the demographic facts of Turkey. Its population has duplicated in the last 40 years. In 1961, the Turkish population was less than 30 millions and in 2003 it consisted of more than 70 millions. Whereas European populations are declining by approximately 30 percent every generation. In the case of Turkey's full EU membership and continuation of these trends, half of the European population will consist of Turks in about two generations, i.e 50 years. Thank you God for eradicating the native population of Europe. It's all God's will as I have learned from דָנִיֵּאל

1 June 2007 at 23:28  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

No Jelly bean you have not upset me. I’m used to hearing this, not just from Muslims but from all ignorant people. I don’t hate you for what you've said and I’m not going to pretend that the situation in Israel is all the fault of the Arabs. But I believe that the land has been given back to the Jews as prophesied.
Please don’t say things like this again because despite what you think of us we are a living people who have all the sensibilities that you do.
Please could everyone try and repair this situation because having this conflict on here for everyone to see is a bad example and I will distance myself from anyone who seeks to prolong it.

1 June 2007 at 23:52  
Anonymous half pint said...

MJB said....
Thanks to the loving and caring Israelies, so many Olive trees have been cut in Palestine just to make their stupid wall.

And when the Israelies gave up the Gaza Strip the Palestinians looted and destroyed the greenhouses given to them by the Israelies.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331863/

2 June 2007 at 00:20  
Blogger A S Grey said...

I would like to suggest to Miss Jelly Bean that rational argument involves winning the favour of one's opponent by using reason, rather than personal attack.

You seem to go through stages; in one, your mind is set on arguing with reason; then at another, seemingly spontaneously, it becomes angry and sees its purpose to defend itself against all its horrid attackers.

What I find ironic is that you become almost irate about suggestions that muslims should fight extremism, for example, yet consider it perfectly justifiable to suggest that Jews went back to Germany "where they came from".

We all have our moments, but for the sake of not losing friends or the respect of others, we must keep them under control.

2 June 2007 at 00:47  
Anonymous Colin said...

The Recusant,

I beg to differ.

"the peace loving Mohammedans to butcher each other if that’s what they want to do; it seems to be the predominant Islamic method of solving all matters of dispute."

It seems to me that Europeans have killed more people than the Islamic world. Simply add the victims of the conquest of the Americas, of Africa and all the other colonies, of WW-I and WW-II, of the Holocaust and the 20 millions killed by Stalin according to the black book of communism, and finally the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants.

Miss Jelly Bean,

You are intelligent enough to understand that JWB's invasions are neither about spreading democracy nor Christianity but about oil. As you know, the power of states depends on its industry, industry on energy and energy mainly on oil. The reason for the war in Iraq and Afganisthan is JWB's desire of world hegemony. As so often, religion is used for hiding the true intentions.

You are right that Israel occupied half a century ago part of the region where Palestinians are living. Although the anger of the victims is understandable, conquests of foreign territories are rather the rule than the exception in human history. If you want to turn the wheel of history back, where do you stop? At half a century as in Israel's case. Why not a century? Then you would have to return the Middle East to Turkey, and India to the British. Why not 15 centuries? Then you would half to return the entire Mediterrian Sea to the Christians. Or why not 20 centuries? Then you have to let the Jews return to their land and send the Palestinians somewhere else. Where do you stop your time machine and for what reasons?

Most disputes are settled after some time because endless wars are disadvantageous for both parties involved. See for example European history, France is still occupying part of the land which formerly belonged to Germany. What would be the result if all nations would fight endlessly for getting the territories back which have been occupied in the course of history by other people? Cooperation benefits everyone, confrontations are only beneficial for armed men. Israel brought modern technology to the Middle East. The people of Palestine would benefit much more by cooperation with Israel than by fighting. You rightly complain that an innocent man has been killed because he belonged to a certain ethnic groups or religion. And how many Israelis have been killed by Palestinians because they belonged to a certain ethnic groups or religion?

Understandbly, you emotionally oppose the invasion of the Palestinian country by foreigners and their religion because you feel that the Palestinians belong to your group. However, you accuse the British people of racism if they have the same feelings in regard to the invasion of their country by foreigners and their religion. According to your own standards, you must be a racist since you want to expell foreigners from Palestinian territory. I don't believe that you really are a racist. You simply do what everyone instinctively does, i.e. identification with your group and their interests. For this reason, multiculturalism never worked anywhere in the long run. Another example is Indian subcontinent. Your family and yourself have become victims there of the inborn tribal loyality of humans.

Finally, although it is not my blog and Cranmer is the master of ceremony here, I would be happy if you would stay and would use your considerable intelligence trying to see both sides of the coin. In my view, your criticism is most welcome but I do not enjoy vehemently presented prejudices. And your objection is certainly correct that I am not free of prejudices myself. But at least, I am trying to free myself of prejudices.

May peace be upon you.

2 June 2007 at 01:02  
Anonymous Colin said...

So that everyone will be attacking me instead of innocent little girls, here another comment about the virtues of religions.

BTW, Mr. Cranmer your reaction to Miss Jelly Bean's comment was justified but unusual harsh considering that you did not intervene when Mission Impossible proposed to nuke Mekka and you never opposed any attack on Islamic religion no matter how prejudices it is. Could it be that you are as prejudiced as Miss Jelly Bean and we all are?


Miss Jelly Bean and Mr. דָנִיֵּאל,

The mind boggling thought just occurred to me that in the not too distant future your and דָנִיֵּאל's son might kill each other because of religious differences; his son for defending Israel because of Yahweh's alleged prophecies and your son because someone in Saudia Arabia claimed that he received orders from Allah. What a marvellous progress religion has brought to humankind. Once, we were killing each other for food, now ideas are sufficient to provoke massacres.

Especially, the Israel-Palestinian killings are madness considering the fact that Jews and Palestinians are genetically one large family as genetic research has revealed. It’s like brothers and sisters killing each other after a long separation and a reunion in their former home because a foreigner in Saudia Arabia demanded it. Normally, genetically related people prefer and support each other. But religion made them hate each other. Understandably, Richard Dawkins and other atheists concluded that religion is a force of evil. Their view is supported by the fact that it is very unlikely that the holocaust of the Jews would ever have happened without the 2,000 years old claims of Christians that the Jews have murdered Christ. Add to this the massacres of Hindus by fervent Islamic believers and the killings of West Indians by Christians and it is hard to deny that Richard Dawkins has a point, doesn’t he.

2 June 2007 at 01:18  
Blogger Jeremy Jacobs said...

Interesting series of replies. Cranmer, well done on calming down Jelly Bean. I sometimes understand the passion of "Palestinian supporters". (Depends of course what Palestinians she's talking about). On the same topic, one ought to talk a look at Stephen Pollards blog at the Spectator. One of his respondees made a brillliant point n relation tothe latest round of anti-Israel boycotts.

2 June 2007 at 02:14  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It seems to me that Europeans have killed more people than the Islamic world.

I think Europeans fall far short of Mao Zedong who it is claimed caused the deaths of 72 000 000 persons during his chaotic rule

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao

2 June 2007 at 06:25  
Anonymous Voyager said...

it is very unlikely that the holocaust of the Jews would ever have happened without the 2,000 years old claims of Christians that the Jews have murdered Christ.

Not sure of that - after all the Turks murdered Armenian Christians......it is often socio-economic. The nature of the Shtetl in Central Europe was that Tsarist Russia had pushed its Jewish population into the border areas of Russia proper and into the colonies in what had been Poland and Lithuania and Ukraine.

The peasant in these areas was exploited by the landowning class but dependent upon the grain merchant and cattle-dealer for loans and sales, these were very often Jews.

Added to which the Jews remedied their persecution by Tsarist Russia in part by engaging in Socialist Revolutionary activity which saw its highpoint in Marxism-Leninism........that I submit was the direct causation of the Holocaust as such - the fear of an impoverished middle class having experienced Communist uprisings throughout Germany in the 1920s fearing being overwhelmed as the unemployed masses might seize control and impose a Soviet dictatorship in Germany as had been attempted in 1918

2 June 2007 at 06:34  
Anonymous Voyager said...

You might want to read up on Walter Rathenau murdered for signing The Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.....check his religion....then check the backgrounds of the SPD members who proclaimed a Republic from the Rotem Rathaus in Berlin in 1918 and then had to move to Weimar because of the violence in Berlin.

The sense of national identity fractured by loss of the war, loss of monarchy, and Communist insurgency as parts of the SPD went to the Spartakists; laid the groundwork for what came thereafter.

There was simply the fear of Communism which permeated Europe and especially Germany which was breaking apart and into which France and Belgium marched in 1923 occupying The Ruhr and triggering hyperinflation

2 June 2007 at 07:18  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Dear Cranmer, before I get to the nasty stuff (yes I know, but I think "Coline" actually wants to be spanked) and I know you like a good laugh ... I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate His Grace on a momentous and Holy achievement, vis-a-vis his much deserved award: best anonymous blog.

I was going to e-mail you (I only found out this morning) but I think this method is more appropriate.

There, you see, some anony-mice deserve to stay that way and earn their plaudits!!

Mind you, I think you deserved the award for 2006, especially considering your Blog was then graced by the incomparable 'Rick.' His comments were worth their pixel weight in gold. I wonder if he has commenced writing his book yet? If you are still visiting dear Rick, then my warmest regards to you Sir!

----------------------

Ah, "Colin." Once a creep, always a creep, eh Colin, my boy? I see you are still leaping to the rescue of mentally disturbed ladies who fall into the habit of posting diatribes on this esteemed blog. You were doing the same in 2006. Quite a ladies 'man' aren't you. Why is this; are you profoundly insecure? Or are you simply scared of the female gender? Most English chaps are I fear.

I will just post this one-off, as I am still busy with my projects. I only came to browse the comments on Cranmer's Baroness Cox article -- as it is of particular interest to me -- and saw you were still up to your old tricks. I was truly tickled to see you are still obsessed with my nom de plume, even after my circa 10 month absence. Perhaps, despite your past invectives and puerility, you actually love and admire me after all? What do you think? Or don't you know? By the way, how is your "beautiful" wife? You still AC/DC? LOL. If you'd like my handsome poster to hang on your bedroom wall, just e-mail your address, and I shall send it post-haste, with pink ribbons and rose water. That should please you. Meanwhile, I'll send your wife a note, and she can meet a real man for a change. Some of my Missions are actually far from Impossible.

Something disturbingly odd about you "Colin." Other regular commenters to this Blog might be interested to know that the moniker "Colin" was actually given to you by His Grace Cranmer, to end your persistent commenting under "Anonymous;" despite repeated requests to properly identify yourself.

Anyway, I will briefly return to some substance, before I go and make a cup of tea.

To quote part of "Colin's" latest contribution: BTW, Mr. Cranmer your reaction to Miss Jelly Bean's comment was justified but unusual harsh considering that you did not intervene when Mission Impossible proposed to nuke Mekka and you never opposed any attack on Islamic religion no matter how prejudices it is. Could it be that you are as prejudiced as Miss Jelly Bean and we all are?

First of all, you need to learn how to spell Makkah or Mecca properly. That way, we will at least know what coordinates to programme into the ICBM. We can't be allowed to nuke the local Bingo Hall!

Secondly, that paragraph --- yes, the one you wrote and then I quoted above --- is an example of profoundly bad English Grammar. Can you not compose your thoughts using proper English? Who is this "Colin" ... from whence he commeth?

Thirdly, I did not propose to "nuke Mekka" [sic] as you so mischievously put it earlier. What I actually said was, if Islam committed another major atrocity on western soil, then we would be entitled to nuke Mecca, or at least to threaten to nuke it; this has a rather different ring to it than an ambiguous cretin like you might wish.

Fourthly, you describe Islam as a 'religion.' How do you know it is a religion? Are you not being rather presumptuous? There are several labels one could use to accurately describe Islam, but "religion" is not one of them.

Fifthly, as for prejudice, I think you should just speak for yourself in that regard. Your arrogance makes you think you can speak so loudly on behalf of others. And as I never tire of saying; arrogance is a close cousin of stupidity; as Tony Blair, his wife, and the bulk of his "rotating" Cabinet have so amply demonstrated.

Have I spanked you enough? We don't want to distract the esteemed Cranmer Blog members unduly from their primary purpose now do we "Colin." So, be a good boy and stick to the script and rules of the game. Write honestly and accurately, on the topic at hand, and all will be well. Deviate, and you will be admonished until you correct your ways.

Now, for that cup of tea. Richly earned I think. Until next time. M.I.

2 June 2007 at 07:44  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

@voyager

"It seems to me that Europeans have killed more people than the Islamic world."

I think Europeans fall far short of Mao Zedong who it is claimed caused the deaths of 72 000 000 persons during his chaotic rule.

----------------------

Knowing your erudite comments from The Brussels Journal and elsewhere, I don't think you will need reminding Voyager, but I will happily add the following as a footnote to your brief 6:25 AM comment:


In human history, Europeans come far down the list in the pecking order of mass killers, even allowing for Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and for the First World War trenches:

I won't bother providing actual numbers to support my list. Those who are interested can Google the evidence if they wish. But we should consider these mass murderers long before tolerating the tiresome Marxist ploy of incriminating "Europeans":

(1) Mongols: annihilation of Baghdad and the wiping out of the enemy at every battle they engaged in from Northern China to Eastern Europe. The Beijing population was also put to the sword when it fell after a long seige: except for the young women who were taken as booty.

(2) Muslim invasion of India. Millions mercilessly butchered over a period of 200 years during successive waves of pillage and plunder.

(3) Stalin and his purges (remember the Gulags), massacre of the Poles, Cossacks, etc., near or at end of Second World War. Millions died during Stalin's paranoid purges.

(4) Muslim destruction of Africa through Slavery. The wiping out of whole tribes. Islam's use of African slaves lasted for several centuries longer than the West's trans-Atlantic slave trade.

(5) Pol-Pot and his Kmer Rouge regime in Cambodia -- The Killing Fields.

Not one single European country has ever come close to the scale of killing or cold-blooded murder achieved by the above. We did not wipe out the Australian Aborigines. The only European country who performed despicably in Africa was Belgium. Don't mention the Conquistadors as the bulk of the killing of Peruvian and Mexican natives were caused by disease, and not by the sword (incidental deaths).

Now for that cup of tea!

2 June 2007 at 08:14  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Could it be that you are as prejudiced as Miss Jelly Bean and we all are?

Prejudice is a potent force within the human psyche, yet not an unquenchable one. His Grace is not prejudiced against Mohammedans, and to conclude this from His Grace's rebuke of Miss Jelly Bean is akin to calling someone 'racist' for daring to criticise Islam. His Grace is surprised that you draw such a conclusion. There was a manifest difference between the reasoned and reasonable comments of Mr Mission Impossible and the comments and tone of those of Miss Jelly Bean. Indeed, Mr Mission Impossible has explained them. It has been made clear to her that she is perfectly welcome to contribute her arguments on His Grace's blog, and to do so forcefully, but her recent rants have been rude, ignorant, and offensive, and there is simply no place for that. It is a pity she has not reconsidered her mode of expression, apologised and returned, not least because she has found some upon this blog who not only agree with her views of Mr Bush, but are manifestly interested in her Sufi expressions of Islam. But humility upon matters religio-political appears to be a quality alien to most Mohammedans...

2 June 2007 at 09:22  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

So I see no one bothered to read my note. Let’s ask a question. Who of us have been insulted? I have and perhaps a few other people have, but am I kicking up a fuss about it? Whilst I agree that jelly beans comments were awful I don’t think everyone has the right to rip into her unless you've been upset. How much better does that make us from her?
Mission impossible, I don’t know who you are but you're nothing special so get over yourself. Your criticizing Colin and for what? Because his views differ from yours? Yes that happens on here but does that justify insulting him to point of dragging his wife into this.
If you've got an argument to make at least make it a decent one and stop picking on spelling and grammar.

2 June 2007 at 10:05  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Mission Impossible, I must say that I am so disappointed by what you write. I very much enjoy reading all of Cranmer's participants, and this blog's entries have been extremely entertaining.

Miss Jelly Bean did allow her anger to get the better of her (I tried to make her see sense early on but I believe the others goaded her until she finally disappeared.) I hope she will return. She did apologise earlier in response to my comment, so she ought to just do it again.

Colin, gallantly came to her rescue, as it is true that His Grace while very eloquent, was perhaps a little hard on Miss Jelly Bean.

But for all that anyone has said on this blog, it is nothing in comparison to your comments sir. You have reduced Cranmer's lovely arena for erudite discussion into a pit of pornographic and offensive rubbish. Spanking? Posters? Pink ribbons? Sir, there are many sites on the internet which will indulge such fantasies. Cranmer's site is not one of them. Kindly keep your offensive fantasies to the privacy of your bedroom and apologise to Colin!

2 June 2007 at 10:26  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

Woh! Calm down people. Honestly, you people really shock me. When it comes to discriminating Islam, it's all about freedom of speech, and if I make one comment about Jews going back to Germany, it's the end of the world! I'm sorry I offended so many people and I realise that I shoud have taken more note of such a sensitive issue, but honestly! It's not like I denied the Holocaust!

דָנִיֵּאל,
You said "It has been said that when we loose control of ourselves our true character is displayed. What a horrid thing to say... ".Hmmmm, I don't think I quite agree with that philosophy of yours. If our true character is displayed only when we lose control, then everyone on earth would in truth be nasty people who hate one another because you can't exactly expect anyone to be cheerful, kind and loving (like the Jews), when they're angry right?

"Your spiteful comments only serve to lower the image of Muslims many of whom are very nice people."

OMG! You actually mean to tell me that there are nice Muslims out there?! Who would have thought.

Too bad I'm not a 'nice' Muslim since Cranmer thinks I'm 'rude, ignorant and offensive'. I'll tell you what I find 'rude, ignorant and offensive' though. The following reply which was given to me by a kind and loving communicant on this blog. "What other reaction do you expect when you propose to degrade women to the level of animals, base laws on a delusional paedophile pirate and take us all back to the 7th century."

Not all of it is offensive since the first and last parts can be argued. It's the middle part in particular, the 'delusional paedophile pirate'. But go ahead, it's your freedom of speech to express your views on my religion. No complaints from me!

So coming back to the question I previously asked you, don't Jews also want to break down the Dome of the Rock and build thier synagogue there?

Oh, you also said "But I believe that the land has been given back to the Jews as prophesied."

Now now. wait a minute. I must confess, your words juxtaposed with the following from Matthew21:43 have confused me. "Therefore said I (Jesus) unto you (Jews), the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Explain please.

2 June 2007 at 10:36  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Mr Colin,

You will get no argument from me regarding the historical barbarism perpetrated by the west, although I think it is debateable whether the purges of Iosif Vissarionovich Djugashvili were a particular European offence, being born in Georgia, a strip of land above Armenia between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. However you could add of course the whole history of the enlightenment, the Napoleonic rampages, the Civil wars in Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Peninsular wars etc, well we both get the picture. But does this detract or invalidate my premise that:

"the peace loving Mohammedans to butcher each other if that’s what they want to do; it seems to be the predominant Islamic method of solving all matters of dispute."

And we do and always have had a system of Laws in Europe based essentially on Roman (Christian) Law which proscribes revenge as a system of justice. We can discuss where and when this has failed but it cannot be denied that in the west we have enshrined that principal of the same justice for every man, and I have to say it originates in early Christian social teaching based on the Gospels.

Miss JB,

His Grace offers wise council, but I for one would rather have you in this Blog than out of it, we know you are young and as Yusuf Islam says,

Its not time to make a change,
Just relax, take it easy.
Youre still young, thats your fault,
Theres so much you have to know.

2 June 2007 at 11:14  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

I think it is my turn now to blow my top. A friend has just explained to me what AC/DC means Mission Impossible. I am shocked! Deeply shocked! How can you say such things on Cranmer's blog!

I told my father (who is not a young man) to read Cranmer's blog, I was so impressed by its quality of discussion. What will my father think of me now??

Mission Impossible, you are a disgrace!

And Recusant, I will do my best to follow Cat Stevens' advice, and relax. But really, it is so disappointing.

2 June 2007 at 11:23  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

His Grace would also rather have Miss Jelly Bean upon his blog, and notes and is appreciative of her apology. He did not mean to be 'uncharacteristically harsh', but trather hoped to reassert the conditions of engagement.

He now hopes for a resumption of intelligent and eruidite discussion.

2 June 2007 at 11:31  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Hmmmm, I don't know recusant. Sometimes it's hard to sit back and take it easy. Guilt is too large a burden to carry.

"If anyone sees a wrong let him change it with his hands. If he cannot then let him change it with his voice. If he cannot, then let him hate it (the wrong) in his heart. And beyond that there is no faith" - Prophet Muhammad.

2 June 2007 at 11:33  
Anonymous Rick said...

Your criticizing Colin and for what? Because his views differ from yours? Yes that happens on here but does that justify insulting him to point of dragging his wife into this.

Daniel would be wise to thread back through archives of this Blog to understand 2006 a year before he was "born" into this Blog.......it is best to avoid jumping into private contretemps and you would be wise to desist.

Mission Impossible might like to read Esther Vilar...I was going to recommend it to "Colin" but I think you might enjoy it just as well.

2 June 2007 at 12:08  
Anonymous Voyager said...

He did not mean to be 'uncharacteristically harsh', but rather hoped to reassert the conditions of engagement.

He was not. He was perfectly correct - it is his house - and Aedes Christae should be respected.

2 June 2007 at 12:11  
Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean said...

Yes, I quite agree with you Voyager. I noticed, Voyager, that you called me stupid on a number of occasions and your harshness towards my comments and views led me thinking. Appetite, anger and apprehension are common to man and animals. However, man also possesses an additional quality which distinguishes him from animals. This being intellect, which enables him to generalise and form concepts. Intellect is the basis of knowledge. Man's distinguishing quality is therefore knowledge. He can either rise to a greater level or fall to the level of animals by letting his anger and lust dominate him. So Cranmer is quite right to reassert the conditions of engagement to an intelligent and erudite level.

2 June 2007 at 13:01  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

Matthew 21:43 explained as requested. I’m surprised no one else has attempted this. Must I do everything myself.

If Miss Jelly Bean, you look at Matthew 21 and start at verse 33 you will read the parable of the wicked husbandmen. This parable is a prophecy of the time of the gentiles. Up until the time of Christ the kingdom of God had been reserved for the people of God (Jews). However the rejection of Christ by the Jews opened the doors of Gods kingdom to all men.
This kingdom that Jesus speaks of here is not Israel but Gods kingdom on Earth that will be established at the second coming of Christ.
When Jesus says "the kingdom of God shall be taken from you", he means that it is no longer reserved for Jews. He goes on to say it shall be "given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof". These are the gentiles who will now be able to share in the hope of the kingdom of God on earth.
This parable does not preach the exclusion of Jews from the kingdom of God because Galatians 3:28 tells us "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus". In other words everyone has a chance in Gods Kingdom regardless of their heritage. The promise of the land to the Jews is in Ezekiel 37 and details the resurrection of the dry bones (Jewish nation scattered throughout the earth by the Romans in AD 70). In future you should perhaps look at the meaning behind scripture rather than take everything at face value.

In response to your other question, yes I believe many Jews would like to see the Dome of the Rock pulled down, but as the Jewish faith is something I do not hold I fail to see why that question has been directed at me.

2 June 2007 at 14:05  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

The question was directed at you because you said "All we wanted was our own land and an identity". I failed to agree with you, and I think we've now established why. Land and identity is obviously not the only thing the Jews want. Thankyou for your explanation of Matthew 21:43. Very interesting.

2 June 2007 at 16:05  
Anonymous Colin said...

"I think Europeans fall far short of Mao Zedong who it is claimed caused the deaths of 72 000 000 persons"

You are correct, Voyager. However, I was comparing the killings done by Moslems with those of Europeans because the Recusant accused the former of something which actually the Europeans have done more efficiently.

2 June 2007 at 20:47  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

One thing everyone fails to see here is that giving power to the Palestinians would lead to only one definite outcome....disaster!
If they're not blowing up Israelis they're blowing up each other, or perhaps on a quiet day after having realised that they've just blown up they're last man, they're taeching the children how to blow their selves up!
Honestly how can you put a people in charge of a country when they could go BANG without warning at any time!
Lets take a look at the Palestinian plan for a while shall we! I’m not sure of all the details but it goes something like this.

* Fire guns into the air while shouting "ULULULULULULU!"

* Bury people who died from falling-bullet wounds. Blame deaths on JOOOOOOS!

* Throw rocks at JOOOOOOS in retaliation.

* Realize too late how stupid it is to bring a rock to a gunfight.

* Attempt to be superior to all other Arab nations by raising an army that can't be beaten by a troop of Israeli Girl Scouts.

* Double the current Palestinian Authority spending on education programs by declaring that suicide bomber vests will now be considered "books".

* Scale back plans to push the JOOOOOOS into the sea, by practicing on a pile of tiny pebbles.

* Get asses kicked by a pile of tiny Jewish pebbles.

* Give up attacking Israel and start with something easier to conquer, like France.

* Which will then become known as "Paristine".

* Attend formal dinner with Kim Jong Il, in celebration of the fact that he now pronounces the country's name correctly.

* Adopt new national motto of "Palestine - all the violent terrorist thuggery of other Arab nations, but without all the oil."

Yea right....I’d feel real comfortable knowing they were in charge!

2 June 2007 at 20:57  
Anonymous Colin said...

"Added to which the Jews remedied their persecution by Tsarist Russia in part by engaging in Socialist Revolutionary activity which saw its highpoint in Marxism-Leninism........that I submit was the direct causation of the Holocaust as such - the fear of an impoverished middle class having experienced Communist uprisings throughout Germany in the 1920s fearing being overwhelmed as the unemployed masses might seize control and impose a Soviet dictatorship in Germany as had been attempted in 1918"

Again you are correct, Voyager.

However, antisemitic progroms occurred in many European countries centuries before Lenin's revolution. For example, during the crusades, the crusaders killed on their way to Jerusalem the entire Jewish population in Worms, a city near Francfort, as you know.

In another thread we were talking about Martin Luther promoting the killing of the Jews and so forth.

From Wikipedia: "A number of early and influential Church works — such as the dialogues of Justin Martyr, the homilies of John Chrysostom, and the testimonies of church father Cyprian — are strongly anti-Jewish. During a discussion on the celebration of Easter during the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, Roman emperor Constantine said,

...it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. (...) Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.[25]

Prejudice against Jews in the Roman Empire was formalized in 438, when the Code of Theodosius II established Roman Catholic Christianity as the only legal religion in the Roman Empire. The Justinian Code a century later stripped Jews of many of their rights, and Church councils throughout the sixth and seventh century, including the Council of Orleans, further enforced anti-Jewish provisions. These restrictions began as early as 305, when, in Elvira, (now Granada), a Spanish town in Andalusia, the first known laws of any church council against Jews appeared. Christian women were forbidden to marry Jews unless the Jew first converted to Catholicism. Jews were forbidden to extend hospitality to Catholics...


As I have pointed out in an earlier thread, Hitler justified his actions by declaring that he was only doing what the Church had done for centuries.

2 June 2007 at 21:06  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The most religiously-inspired regime England has ever lived under - The Commonwealth of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell - is the very same one which permitted the Jews to return to England and removed the ban.......that's Puritanism for you

2 June 2007 at 21:44  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Must I do everything myself.


Best way I find.....might have to dispense with the rest of you....

2 June 2007 at 21:46  
Anonymous Colin said...

Hello Mission Impossible, what a pleasure to see that you are back from your trip. Welcome!

"you actually love and admire me after all"

Yes, I always admired and still admire you as an outstanding intellect. What I never admired were your bad manners. But I see that they already have improved.

Honestly, I found it somewhat boring without your stimulating comments. That's why I always hoped for your return. Where have you been for such a long time? After your departure, I realized what a though job it is to stimulate debate by provocation. You were so much better at it compared to me.

You are right. My apologies for my bad grammar and style. The reason is simple: English is my second language.

I still don't understand why you left this wonderful blog? You were so good at dishing out insults to others, especially to ladies, that it couldn't hardly surprise you that some people would react unfavourably to such behaviour. Especially, since we Westerners have been educated to show courteousness towards women. Anyhow,

THERE MUST BE A GOD! BECAUSE HE HEARED MY PRAYERS AND SEND YOU BACK.

Boredom has an end. Thank you God!

2 June 2007 at 21:50  
Anonymous Colin said...

Your Grace,

I agree that Miss Jelly Bean's remarks were inappropriate and that her behaviour deserved a rebuke. And that part of your reaction was well done. However, I beg to differ with regard to you asking her to leave the blog. If this is the blog of erudition and intelligence, as you constantly claim, then the appropriate reaction is intellectual in nature and not an attempt to avoid debate by asking critics to leave.

My criticism of Islam as an ideology of conquest is well known to you and the regular readers of this blog. Naturally, Islamic believers have a different view. Nevertheless, I don't see any reason why I should treat a person unfriendly just because of his or her different opinion.

2 June 2007 at 22:19  
Anonymous Colin said...

דָנִיֵּאל

You wrote "Whilst I agree that jelly beans comments were awful I don’t think everyone has the right to rip into her unless you've been upset. How much better does that make us from her?"

Thus, my impression was correct that you are an honest person.

Thank you for defending me from Mission Impossible's attacks. I appreciate that. Don't worry, I actually enjoy his rants as long as he only insults me and not others.

2 June 2007 at 22:25  
Anonymous Colin said...

Dear Mrs. Snuffleupagus,

Thank you very much for defending me against the funny attacks of Mission Impossible. I really appreciate your kind words and intervention. But please don't worry too much about me. I don't feel insulted by the unusual behaviour of Mr. Mission Impossible but see it as an inexpensive entertainment.

2 June 2007 at 22:37  
Anonymous Colin said...

The Recusant,

"But does this detract or invalidate my premise that:

"the peace loving Mohammedans to butcher each other if that’s what they want to do; it seems to be the predominant Islamic method of solving all matters of dispute."


Although I agreed with the ironic first part of your sentence, I differed with regard to the last part as I understood it, namely that butchering each other is predominantly an Islamic method. Your gentleman-like manners, i.e. for asking Miss Jelly Bean to stay, deserve my full admiration.

2 June 2007 at 22:49  
Anonymous Colin said...

Rick,

It is good to see that you are still with us. I didn't read your interesting comments for some time. What happened?

BTW, I know Ester Villar and I agree with her. But I still don't like if men continually ask women to shut-up just because they are women. Do we really want to go back to these old stories of 2006? Mission impossible finally came back. Everything is forgotten and forgiven. Despite his unusual manners, Mission Impossible is an interesting character and an able debater if he doesn't weaken is own arguments by adding insults. Let's have a fresh start.

2 June 2007 at 23:04  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

What on earth happened in 2006?

2 June 2007 at 23:18  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

"The most religiously-inspired regime England has ever lived under - The Commonwealth of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell - is the very same one which permitted the Jews to return to England and removed the ban.......that's Puritanism for you"

Surely, the Britons have for centuries one of the most tolerant cultures in Europe. And my guess is that the CoE did't play a small part in achieving British liberties. You are probably better informed about the details. Nevertheless, the other European countries are also Christian and butchered their Jews for religious reasons.

2 June 2007 at 23:19  
Anonymous Colin said...

Snuffleupagus,

"What on earth happened in 2006?"

I didn't want to warm that old story up. But without explanations you might think that something horrible happened which didn't. At least not in my point of view.

In 2006, googling the web, I found an article by His Grace about the EU. Since I slightly disagreed, I left a comment. After the second anonymous comment, His Grace asked me as usual to use a name, for example Colin. Never having blogged before, I was attracted to this new form of communication and found the comments of Mission Impossible most interesting. He traced the problems of the welfare state back to Cramsci's communist agenda. The only woman on this blog made from time to time an ironic remark because she enjoyed having a laugh as she said. Each time, when she said something, Mission Impossible launched an attack on her. At the beginning, I defended him because I really enjoyed his comments about Cramsci and his stories about his work in Muslim countries. When I defended her right to say something, he accused me of sexual motifs. Finding that rather funny I replied jokingly that the lady might be 80 years old and that I already have a beautiful wife. He replied by accusing me of bragging about having a beautiful wife. Jumping from one idea to the next, I got the impression that he couldn't stay focused on the issues we were debating. His attacks on the only woman on the blog became more and more aggressive. Although she didn't say much, he constantly told her to shut-up. My attempts to calm him weren't successful. When he finally came up with some strange ideas, e.g. he accused African men to only come to Europe in search for sex with white women and proposed to nuke Mecca for stopping Islamism, and obviously was unable to control his inappropriate anger, I saw all the classical signs of mania: irritability, ideas of grandeur (he wanted to write a book to save the Western world from Islam), hypersexuality, aggression, lack of inhibition, incoherence of thoughts, lack of insight. I felt sorry for him and in order to help him, I tried to gently point him towards a website listing the symptoms. He launched a full attack of insults on me and when others were making fun of him, he unfortunately left.

Today, I know that my diagnosis of mania was probably wrong, because the anonymity of the blogosphere seems to remove inhibitions from people to engage in aggressive behaviour.

Mission Impossible, I was wrong and I am sorry for hurting your feelings. Please forgive me.

3 June 2007 at 00:24  
Anonymous Colin said...

What is the meaning of AC/DC?

I only know: AC/DC = Alternating current and Direct current or the name of a rock band

3 June 2007 at 00:52  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Surely, the Britons have for centuries one of the most tolerant cultures in Europe
No Britain is an invention, a fiction. It exists only from the mid 1750s....the Church of ENGLAND is just that.

England is not a tolerant culture. The Lord Protector who readmitted Jews to England in 1656 after their expulsion in 1290 was the same Oliver Cromwell that executed the King of England in 1649

The Revolution took place in 1688.....the Jacobite wars in 1715, 1745 and the military occupation of Scotland.

Pitt's Administration with Sedition Acts, Combination Acts; Lord Liverpool with Peterloo; The Chartists and The Plug Riots......the Curragh Mutiny and the Triple Alliance of unions in 1914........The General Strike 1926.......the Saltley Ash Depot and the Miners Strikes 1972, 1974, etcetc


England is not a "tolerant" country that is a myth. The last lynching was in 1958 it is true, but this country is explosive as people will discover in the future - the bonds that hold violent forces contained have long broken


BTW Oliver Cromwell ABOLISHED The Church of England, ABOLISHED The House of Lords, and removed ALL Bishops......and closed ALL theatres and abolished Christmas

3 June 2007 at 08:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the meaning of AC/DC?

http://www.paradisi.de/Lexikon/B/Bisexualitaet/

3 June 2007 at 08:14  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Colin
Thanks for the explanation. Seems that life in Blogsville can be more exciting that life in the real world!

Finally I will post on my blog today why schools are not businesses and cannot be treated as such. So you are welcome to comment. His Grace is also welcome, but I see he is shy of commenting on other people's blogs.

3 June 2007 at 10:05  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

Thank you for your interesting lesson about English history. I was thinking about the Magna Carta and its major influence on the development of liberal societies in Europe and the US. Voltaire was so impressed by the British freedom of speech when he lived in Britain that he demanded the same rights for France. In my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong), the English people had an important influence on the liberal culture of the West and its success.

Snuffleupagus,

"Seems that life in Blogsville can be more exciting that life in the real world!"

Sometimes. And it's even more exciting and amusing in the case of an obviously impossible mission. But it seems to me that you have a pretty exciting real life yourself as the headmaster of an inner city school. I admire your dedication and persistence to help these disadvantaged kids although it looks like mission impossible.

Thank you for inviting me back to your blog despite my critical comments about your proposed plan to close private schools and to force everybody into state-run schools. I cannot comment on His Grace's views, but I find your blog most interesting and sometimes amusing. Everybody should read these real life stories illustrating the difficult life of teachers in inner city schools. For the curious mind, here the direct link.

Anonymous or maybe MI,

Thanks for providing me with the link to a German page about bisexuality as a reply to my question about the meaning of AC/DC.

Now, I understand the meaning of Mission Impossible's proposal: "You still AC/DC? LOL."

Thank you very much, MI, for your kind offer. Do you want to tell us more about your experiences?

3 June 2007 at 13:53  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Colin - I'm a teacher, not a Headmaster or mistress for that matter. Though I will be, one day.

And I don't have a plan to close private schools. I simply said that a system that did not separate children would be better in the end for all.

3 June 2007 at 14:29  
Anonymous Voyager said...

the English people had an important influence on the liberal culture of the West and its success.

You are correct but it was a result of certain forces becoming dominant in England and development of a merchant class which did challenged aristocratic power and an industrialist class which became a countervailing power.

Never forget that until c. 1870 the most powerful House of Parliament was the House of Lords - the landowning class and the landed families like the Cecils......even as late as 1902 the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was a member of the House of Lords from the Cecil family

There was until the late 20th Century a culture of being taught Ancient History, Latin and Greek, and a sense of being part of the era of great civilisations where politicians could quote Horace or Livy.......and that probably passed with the death of Enoch Powell

The English ruling class felt they were heirs to Rome and Greece as arbiters of Western Civilisation whereas today they see themselves as department store managers making shoppers happy with their purchases

3 June 2007 at 15:10  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

"Never forget that until c. 1870 the most powerful House of Parliament was the House of Lords - the landowning class and the landed families like the Cecils"

You are right, I forgot that the situation fundamentally changed when political power did not longer depend on familial or personal wealth but on promising gifts to the poor. The promised redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor inevitably required an increase of coercive regulations and an expansion of state bureaucracy, i.e. the end of liberties. No hope left?

My impression is that at least some part of the British people is able to remember the old ways and opposes more coercion. I don't see any of these trends in France or Germany, probably because they never had a long history of liberties. Hence, the British tradition is still the best we have in Europe.

3 June 2007 at 19:37  
Anonymous Colin said...

Mission impossible,

Where are you? You promised spanking and then you ran away. I don't have time to endlessly wait for you giving me spanking pleasures. I am dying of boredom without you. Please do some more spanking.

3 June 2007 at 21:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older