NIck Griffin tells BBC that boats carrying immigrants should be sunk

[spokette]

I think his victory in the EU elections makes him think that he can reveal more of his true true heinous side.

How long before he starts extolling the virtue of gas chambers?

In reponse to the OP, Nick Griffin is a fascist twunt who managed to get elected because of the complacancy of the main political parties and the apathy towards them along with a misguided tunnel vision view of a Great British utopia perpetuated by extreme right wing supporters. The sad truth is that most of the muppets who voted for the BNP would be the first to be conscripted into Nick Griffin's army and ensuing war on everyone who isn't 100th generation white British.

what were the main parties complacent about?

politics is all the same really no matter who you're talking about....it's all about power & control.

lol MT..avg is ok.

If anyone is interested in even looking at the problem from an Israeli perspective - and it is a good corrective to the bias we are fed in our media there is this documentry dvd www.thecaseforisrael.com/index.html
You can watch clips here www.thecaseforisrael.com/trailer_clips/clips.html I'd watch them all.

You don't have to agree. But it will make you more informed.

Sorry MT I really can't see the point in debating with you if you are going to make things up. Israel did attack first in the Six-Day war (a fantastic tactical pre-emptive move though it was) and it did seize a large chunk of land from Jordan as well as the Gaza strip from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria, all of which it still holds in contravention of a series of UN declarations. Large amounts of people were displaced and are still refugees. These are facts. There may have been justifications for their actions (and as I said they were tactically very successful, and who knows what might have happened without their probably preemptive action) but they still happened. That the neighbouring countries were aggressive to Israel is also undoubtedly true.

I would recommend reading a number of good histories that are based on primary sources and avoiding polemic from either side.

As for your other statements, if you deny history then essentially you are also saying might is right, because it tends to be the powerful that make the changes. History is also very powerful in creating identities - the past is often used in building ideologies for example. It is never over and done with.

Regarding the constitution, if you look at debates by constitutionalists the Israeli set up is usually held to be one that does not work very well, because it leads to too much power in the hands of very small parties. That's not to say that the first past the post systems are better, they have their own problem, usually caused by too much power being in the hands of the big parties. Both systems are democratic though, just different.

Nooka - these are not lies. You are simply denying that it was a pre-emtive attack, in short and act of defence. This is precelty why it is useless debating history.

I am certainly not saying might is right at all - I'd ve falling foul of hte naturalistc fallacy if I did. Just becasue Israel happend to have the might to repel an attack by six surrouding states is not right, but very fortunate. They fought and won another attepted holochast in 1967, and have been doing so ever since.

WE cannot have a full debate on here. None of us are special;ists, even if we have studied these thinsg at uni (though I like your suggestion thjat I should read something other than polemic, as if you are privvy to what I read). I am not saying you are wrong. I have no interest in 'refuting' your argument. You don't have to agree. It's not just for you.

Noy meaning to kill the thread. I'm not unintersted in your opinion, Nooka. I just feel that on a forum like MN, there is space for differing opinions that don't need to equate to your wrong/i'm right

(Though I do agree with PW that I am very obtuse sometimes. I don't mean to be. Just a time thing.