With genuine reluctance, I find myself obliged to ban Larry from St Louis from commenting on this blog.
I am extremely happy for people to comment on this blog who disagree with my views. It makes it much more interesting for everybody. I wish more people who disagree would comment.
But Larry has a different agenda. His technique is continually to accuse me of holding opinions which I do not in fact hold, and which he thinks will call my judgement into doubt.
Take this comment posted by Larry at 9.35 am today:
I’ve re-read your post on the Russian spies, and once again you’ve proven to be a complete dumbass.
I predicted Russia claiming (in some minor way) those idiots. You didn’t. You thought it was a conspiracy.
You’ve once again self-indicted.
In fact my view on the Russian spies was the exact opposite of what Larry claims it was. As I posted:
I don’t have any difficulty in believing that the FBI really have discovered a colony of Russian sleeper spies in the United States.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/those_russian_s.html#comments
This is not Larry being mistaken – remember he claimed he had just re-read my posting. It is rather indicative of a very deliberate technique he has used scores of times, that of claiming I hold an opinion which he believes will devalue my other arguments in the mind of other readers, when I do not in fact hold that opinion.
He most often – indeed daily – does this with reference to 9/11. He tries to divert almost every thread on to the topic of 9/11 and to insinuate that I am among those who believe that 9/11 was “an inside job”. In fact, I am not of that opinion and never have been.
I have put up with this now for months, but Larry’s activities have become so frenetic and are so counter-productive to informed debate, I am not prepared to put up with it any more. I am also deeply sucpicious of the fact that he is able to spend more time on this blog than me, and to post right around the clock (often as with this one at 9.35am – think about it – what time is that in the US?).
Anyway, sorry Larry, your derailing days are over.
.
I did not outline that – ” piratical scum” – at all – that was someone else, avatar singh, I think. Please do not ascribe views to me which I never, ever espoused or expressed. Those views are the antithesis of my views. That’s exactly what ‘Larry’ used to try to do, constantly. What’s come over you, Alfred? Why are you behaving like ‘Larry’ all of a sudden?
“However Zionist terrorists seem to have a get-out-of-jail free card”.
And the worst of the lot – Menachem Begin – got the Nobel Peace prize.
Alfred,
I really enjoyed our discussion that included your experiences of the effects of globalisation upon your business. I enjoyed it far more than the “race” discussion, which has been repeated on a number of threads, and now here.
The former discussion included your personal experiences, whereas the latter doesn’t; you couch it in scientific terms. However, I sense that it is the latter discussion that stirs deeper feelings on you.
Typo on = in
Suhayl said,
“There is much more to these imperialist wars than the events of late 2001 in NYC and DC. Much more. Systemic subjects, economics, war generation, etc. But you know this. So what are you suggesting? And why?”
As for the why, there you go again, suggesting I have an ulterior motive, thus discrediting what I say.
What I said was that 9/11 was the key to the present war to establish the new world order. Perhaps I should have said the enabling event.
Obviously the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is nonsense. Anyone who is scientifically literate knows this. And there is good political evidence too. If the official theory held water, there would have been a proper judicial inquiry and those responsible for the failure of America’s air defenses would have paid the penalty. As it was, they were, I believe, all promoted instead.
Exposing the 9/11 fraud is thus essential if there is to be any hope of preventing the creation of a global empire, which will be the most corrupt the world has ever seen.
So why not go and discuss it all with Glenn and angrysoba on the appropriate thread, a thread which I’m sure many of us check-out on a regular basis? And it is you, Alfred, who is using tactics which ‘Larry’ used. I am not suggesting anything, simply pointing out what is evident.
Suhayl,
True, you didn’t call the english piratical scum, but you painted a picture of victorian england that was laregely false. A land of dark satanic mills were the faces of the poor were not only ground but underground — oops, I am exaggerating slightly. However, the point is, you falsely portrayed the english working class as horribly exploited whereas in fact they were among the wealthiest working people in the world. Moreover, you entirely ignore the role of victorians in creating the modern world of publicly funded schools, hospitals, etc. and in fighting for human rights beyond the borders of their own country. There was a lot in the victorian world for the british to be rightly proud of, including the growing acceptance of the right of indians and other peoples of the empire to govern themselves.
“If you can show me where he uses the words, “stand-down order”. That would be good”.
The precise terminology is not used but is implied in the following exchange:
“There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?””
The “orders” referred to are clearly orders not to scramble fighters and can therefore be reasonably construed as stand-down orders. Unless you wish to argue they were telephone orders for pizza or something.
OK, Suhayl, I’m a troll who believes that the british nation are entitled to a homeland of their own, and you’re a settler activist seeking to crush any discussion of that right.
As for deviation, take a look at your own totally fatuous irruption about vegetal consciousness. LOL
Benjamin Disraeli called it “two nations”. Although much of what you’re saying is not incorrect, Alfred, and I agree with much of it, it’s a complex picture. The threads to which you allude were to do with colonialism. Why are you going on at me, jumping from this to that without fully answering my points?
Alfred – “it is incorrect to say that the indigenous population of my Father’s home town of Leicester has been genocided, in reality it has only been half genocided.”
Where are the refugee camps for the survivors ?
No, don’t answer that (not that I think you were likely to). I’m sorry, I just give up. I can make no sense of your comments whatsoever. In form, they appear to be answers to the points I was trying to raise, but in substance, they don’t answer anything, they dodge around them, while flinging out the same assertions time and time again, in an increasingly wild manner. Your Ph.D. thesis must have been a lot of fun.
Suhayl,
I have upset you. I am sorry. You have slightly irked me too, as a matter of fact. So why don’t we call it quits on this round.
I am off for lunch. Have a very pleasant evening.
Cheers.
How many of you here believe that the phone calls of the passengers on the 911 planes to their family members were faked? You really have to be an idiot to believe that.
Okay, Alfred, have a super lunch. Sorry about the vegetal thing, it was just a slightly surreal joke.
“How many of you here believe that the phone calls of the passengers on the 911 planes to their family members were faked?”
Given that it was not possible to make cell-phone calls from planes flying at cruising speed and altitude in 2001 you can count me in on that one (along with fellow idiots the FBI).
Oh damn, another point to settle.
Richard asks about the remnants of the indigenous population of the city of Leicester: “Where are the refugee camps for the survivors ?”
Then, unreasonably it seems to me, he says “don’t answer.” Why not? Why ask? You don’t wish to be know?
The facts are simple enough. In 1901 Leicester had a population of 211,579, virtually all indigenous Britons. Today it has around 279,921 people (2001 census) of whom more than half are reported to be non-indigenous. So that leaves 139,960 thousand indigenous Britons in Leicester, decline of 71,618 since 1901.
So to answer your question: Where are the refugee camps for the survivors ? (a) there are no refugee camps, which seem to be a figment of your imagination, and (b) the remaining indigenous Britains of the city of Leicester are still living more or less where they lived before.
As for the missing 71 thousand, Suhayl says they all went to live in Leeds or somewhere. However, while there migration within the UK, the overall trend is for displacement of indigenous britons on a substantial scale by non indigenous people.
Sorry of this boggles your mind. It seems simple enough to me and the great majority of Britons who oppose further mass immigration.
My point, of course, was that “genocide” is a ridiculous word to use.
“How many of you here believe that the phone calls of the passengers on the 911 planes to their family members were faked?”
Sure they were faked. Here’s an informative CBC interview with Prof. David Ray Griffin about the cell phone calls, which even the FBI concluded were impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjImLL4NnwA
“Today it has around 279,921 people (2001 census) of whom more than half are reported to be non-indigenous.”
Jebus on a moped – of course they’re indigenous, indigenous TO THE PLANET EARTH!
So MJ, what sort of technology did they use to make the phone calls?
It’s been 9 years – surely such technology would now be commercially available, no?
Don’t you understand that scientific and/or technological discoveries occur in parallel with one another?
Have you heard Roger Ebert talk? They used fancy current technology to use his movie review monologues to recreate his voice after he lost his voice box. He still doesn’t sound much better than Hawking. Why don’t they just give him your super-secret lizard people technology?
Are you really that much of a moron?
“even the FBI concluded were impossible.”
No, they didn’t. Is this the same FBI that took part in the mass murder?
Richard,
Wikipedia defines genocide as
“systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group”
Many would say Britain’s immigration policy under NuLabor as it affected the city of Leicester and other towns and cities in Britain was genocidal by that definition.
But maybe it was not systematic — just total bloody stupidity.
Alfred,
classification is a function of the mind. You chose to classify the displacement of people in, say, Leicester as “genocide”. To most people genocide involves mass-murder; ie they classify differently from you. If you wish to avoid appearing racist, and to avoid starting an argument, use a less antagonistic classification.
But there are numerous other examples of you choosing antagonistic language. So it seems that you want to start heated arguments.
Alfred has had this discussion on another thread, at length. For the record, I find his views incomprehensible. I also note his reappearance at a time of some chaos, his strange segue into 9/11 and his failure to apologise for misquoting Suhayl.
@mikecobley: too right. Unfortunately the far right don’t like this idea: or at least, they think it’s an idea, not a fact.
“classification is a function of the mind.”
No, Clark, classification is a function of the meaning of the words used in the classification. I’ve given a defensible definition of the words I use.
Anyhow, yer off topic. And Techie, and anyone else who challenges me on anything but the Larry question.
Incidentally Tech, I did apologize to Suhayl. I said I was sorry to have upset him, and he wished me a pleasant lunch, which I’ve had and I’m now going to the beach so cheers, probably for good, as most here would seem to wish.
“So it seems that you want to start heated arguments.”
I don’t think so, I think he just wants to say his thing over and over and over again. While dismissing all challenges, granted.
How it works for him to be so happy and all in a nice multicultural society thousands of miles away while preaching division and mutual paranoia to us is not clear to me, and very probably never will be. But, as with the previous iterations, it goes nowhere, makes no rational sense to me, and life’s too short for it.
Gosh, this is becoming a long thread, ain’t it! Still, its very pleasant to discourse on trolls, the facilitated transport of xenobiotic concepts across the blood-brain barrier and other assorted phenomena. I do wish I were on a sunny beach promenade, though, supping from an ice-cream cornet, listening to fey Edwardian popular songs and watching the, ahm, rollers roll in…
… reminds me of Al Stewart song.
The usual “liberal” argument in favor of censorship. It was a bad argument then and is a bad one now. Craig is only willing to permit comments that are made in a way he likes. Like I said – usual liberal crap. Murray is a sanctimonious hypocrite.
“Sanctimonious hypocrite”. Hmmm, I like that: accurate and apposite. I shall put it as a heading over a photograph of Chinless Murray on my blog.
Who are these people? Personal attacks on the host of this blog, so predictable, so slapstick. Pathetic, guys. Really transparently pathetic. Do you wear raincoats on sunny days?