posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:00 AM
Believe me, I'm well aware of what the UKIP is and what it's members stand for. My comments have not been constructed a direct attack against the
UKIP but against Kilroy-Silk and what he represents.
Allow me, if I may, to condense your case somewhat:
"If Abu Hamza is allowed to spout disgusting, inflammatory, rascist bile, then Kilroy-Silk should be allowed to be just as ill-informed and
Kilroy-Silk is a rascist. I know this, because - wait for it - he said rascist things. For crying out loud, his claim that "Arabs" were
responsible for the deaths in the WTC is nothing short of jaw-dropping. It displays a pathetic ignorance of global sociopolitics, betrays a mind so
shallow that it can only express itself in terms of "us good, them bad", and is, in short, one of the most small-minded things I've heard in a long
If, Nerevar, the UKIP is "non-rascist, non-sectarian" and "is not a prejudiced organisation at all", then they should not be consorting with those
people who blatantly are. Sovereignty is an important issue - some would say, the defining issue of our age - and that is why it is far too important
to let self-publicising slime like Kilroy-Silk hijack the debate.
I would like to encourage everyone to check out the UKIP website as linked by Nerevar, and to become active in the debate. I don't expect everyone
to agree with me, but I demand that no room be given for small-minded bigotry of the worst kind.
Last minute addition:
Leveller, the distinction between "Arabs" and "Arab regimes" does not make it alright. Is the British government directly responsible for the
actions of Ian Huntley of Myra Hindley? How about the BNP itself?
It's ignorant, and it's bollocks.