Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
My original point was the fact that Nick Griffin was being
a) contradictory ("stand behind Israel's right to deal with terrorists" and "reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be") - if you believe that the Gaza Strip is part of the Palestinian National Authority, and the PNA is an Interim Administrative Body (a de facto government), and Hamas won a majority at the last PNA elections, surely he is interfering?
|
But as I said - the accord to not interfere only comes into being after they "take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country"
Quote:
|
b) empty - at the time both statements above were made, the BNP had about 50 or so councillors out of 22000 (the Green Party have twice as many); not really in a position to make "accords". Also, reach an accord with the Muslim world - not even the "Muslim world", if such a thing exists, can do that; do we really believe that the diplomatic powers of the BNP can get Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc etc, to agree to something.
|
That is a point but I thought it went without saying. However all parties that aren't in power produce manifestos as if they were. I wouldn't expect the BNP to be any different.
My point whoever was that the comment was really about Judaism not Islam. I believe you quoted it and addressed it out of context which should have been pointed out. I'm not being pedantic here and i'm not trying to attack you but it served as a pretty good example of what I have been saying continually through this thread.