Why link to, and quote from, an American far right organisation's commentary on the report rather than the report itself?

For those who want to read the report itself:

Tackling extremism in the UK

I don't see your problem with an American viewpoint, perhaps they are not a party to the UK version of the Truman show that most of the UK media and politicians seem afflicted by, there are some exceptions though.

A task force chaired by David Cameron said the policy of treating different cultures as ‘separate and distinct’ – known as multiculturalism – had been a ‘mistake’.

Timid politicians with a ‘misplaced’ fear of offending Muslims have allowed Islamist extremism to take root in the institutions of Britain, the Prime Minister warned yesterday.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518504/David-Cameron-Mistake-multiculturalism-aided-extremists.html#ixzz2nv5HCidY

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Misplaced fear, or indeed rational fear judging by the repercussions of doing so.

P.S Meanwhile a pro-Sharia march in Brick lane protests against the sale of alcohol there and a march of Orthodox Jews march through Golders green campaigning to get shops to close on the Sabbath (One of the above is false, no prizes for guessing which, as even the UK government report seems to have concluded).

I don't have a problem with an American viewpoint. I do have a problem believing anything put out by extremists, whatever their political or religious or other persuasion.

BTW, you can't even get your own comment on the report correct!

It is not, as you claim, a UK government report on the murder of Lee Rigby.

That murder is still the subject of an on going court case, and any report by any one which drew any conclusions about the murder before the end of the court case would be contempt of court.

BTW, the march in Brick Lane was not to protest about the sale of alcohol; it was to protest about Muslims selling alcohol!

But the full facts don't fit your prejudice.

I don't have a problem with an American viewpoint. I do have a problem believing anything put out by extremists, whatever their political or religious or other persuasion.

BTW, you can't even get your own comment on the report correct!

It is not, as you claim, a UK government report on the murder of Lee Rigby.

That murder is still the subject of an on going court case, and any report by any one which drew any conclusions about the murder before the end of the court case would be contempt of court.

BTW, the march in Brick Lane was not to protest about the sale of alcohol; it was to protest about Muslims selling alcohol!

But the full facts don't fit your prejudice.

As a somewhat disinterested observer, why did the Muslims march when a much more effective approach would have been for the local Imams to have a chat with the liquor store owners? Muslim to Muslim, so to speak.

A march seems like rather an attempt for publicity than an attempt to change things in the local liquor shops.

There is at the moment a lot about alcohol in the British media. Just too much, too freely available.

The government (any British government - no diference between parties) are in thrall to the alcohol industry. In times gone by (when I was but a young lad) booze was only sold in pubs and licensed 'off-licences' - like the liquor stores of the US - specialising in selling beer, wine and spirits to the public. Nowadays every supermarket and many corner stores sell booze at cut prices, so the off-licences have become almost extinct. The few left are specialising in wines, offering advice with sales, stocking good cellars of the better quality wines, so on and so forth.

These Muslim owned/managed corner stores need to stock booze in order to stay in business. A lot of it is probably brought in from the continent (Europe) on booze trips, together with cigarettes. There is a generous allowance for bringing in these items within the <deleted> (sorry, typo - EU) - a van-full is regarded as OK in many instances. So all this deprives the government of a lot of duty on the alcohol, plus allowing under-age or just complying (in UK - 18 yrs) kids to buy as much as they like.

I believe that we were better off in the old days, when only a few off-licences were allowed to sell alcohol. I would like to see a return to the 'pubs & off-licences only' regime, where the number of off-licences is limited by having. say, one per five thousand of population. And no 'loss-leaders'. And no bringing-in more than a limited amount of alcohol from abroad, as with air-travel.

But back to Lee Rigby - yesterday the two killers were found guilty. Unfortunately they will not be hung (or drawn, or quartered) but they will spend years in jail being abused before someone sticks a knife into each of them.

Regrettably their mentors, people like Anjin Choudry, will still go scot-free, protected by the British laws on racial hatred and such. Evidently it is not racial hatred to preach against the majority race/religion, only for whitey to make remarks about minorities.

These Muslim owned/managed corner stores need to stock booze in order to stay in business.

As do most non Muslim owned ones!

A lot of it is probably brought in from the continent (Europe) on booze trips, together with cigarettes. There is a generous allowance for bringing in these items within the <deleted> (sorry, typo - EU) - a van-full is regarded as OK in many instances. So all this deprives the government of a lot of duty on the alcohol, plus allowing under-age or just complying (in UK - 18 yrs) kids to buy as much as they like.

The allowance is for personal consumption only.

It is illegal to sell on alcohol and cigarettes brought in from another EU state; whether duty free or duty paid. HMRC regularly carry out raids on shops suspected of doing so.

It is also illegal to sell alcohol or cigarettes to under 18s. The police carry out operations against shops suspected of doing so. This usually involves sending an under 18 into the shop who attempts to buy alcohol or tobacco. If successful, the police follow.

Evidently it is not racial hatred to preach against the majority race/religion, only for whitey to make remarks about minorities.

Wrong.

Hate preaching cleric jailed

Abu Hamza jailed for seven years

Race hate preacher Faisal deported

Meanwhile, back on topic.

Two guilty of Lee Rigby murder

The judge obviously wants to impose a whole life tariff:

Mr Justice Sweeney ordered that the verdicts be heard in silence. He said he would pass sentence after a key appeal court ruling on the use of whole life terms in January.

Meanwhile, back on topic.

Two guilty of Lee Rigby murder

The judge obviously wants to impose a whole life tariff:

Mr Justice Sweeney ordered that the verdicts be heard in silence. He said he would pass sentence after a key appeal court ruling on the use of whole life terms in January.

Wise move.

Yet there are many 'whole-life' sentences still active in England and Wales.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9693728/Whole-life-tariffs-prisoners-who-will-die-behind-bars.html

Whole life tariffs: prisoners who will die behind bars

There are dozens of prisoners currently serving a 'whole-life' tariff, meaning that they can never be released, in England and Wales.

These sentences are allowed by English/Welsh law. Approved by democratic vote in our elected House of Commons and appointed House of Lords, signed into law by the Queen.

What right does any unelected, unapproved Court outside of the United Kingdom have to discuss our preferred method of jurisprudence, let alone pass judgement on it.

We have our checks and balances, we do not need outside interference.

This 'European Court' was set up at the behest of a British legal body to contain and condemn the excesses of Josip Stalin after WWII. It has been co-opted into the PC agenda of failed socialist thinking of the Seventies and has not moved on since then, although the rest of the world has discarded most of that idiocy.

What right does any unelected, unapproved Court outside of the United Kingdom have to discuss our preferred method of jurisprudence, let alone pass judgement on it.

The ECHR has that right because, as founder members, the UK government gave it to them.

Even the Torygraph agrees with the ruling on whole life tariffs.

Why the European Court is right on whole-life sentences

See also Whole-life jail sentences: what are the government's options? from the Grauniad.

Remember, even if the government does comply with the ruling it does not mean that prison doors will be thrown open and lifers released. All it means is that those serving life will have their sentences reviewed after 25 years.

As I stated before - the ECHR was formed on the British suggestion that a body recognised internationally was required to attempt to curb the excesses in Stalinist Russia. It was not intended to delve into questions as to whether prisoners should be entitled to vote, or whether they should be able to watch TV in the comfort of their hotel rooms cells, have their eggs sunny-side up or scrambled.

The court was founded to voice an opinion on whether prisoners should be shot without trial, sent to psychiatric hospitals for years, sent to the gulags to starve in the snow, or whether entire populations should be uprooted and transplanted three thousand kilometres to make a new life in the wilderness. And this was ONLY to voice an opinion.

Nowadays they interfere in the minutiae of a country's jurisprudence and FORCE that decision upon the offending country(ies). This is not what it was set up for - it has been taken over by people who have no interest in leaving each country to do it's own thing, but are trying to force the world into one PC mould which has been exposed for it's idiocy for decades now.

Only the loony fringe of leftist greenies and animal rights activists still believe the garbge that emantes from this asylum.

As I stated before - the ECHR was formed on the British suggestion that a body recognised internationally was required to attempt to curb the excesses in Stalinist Russia. It was not intended to delve into questions as to whether prisoners should be entitled to vote, or whether they should be able to watch TV in the comfort of their hotel rooms cells, have their eggs sunny-side up or scrambled.

The court was founded to voice an opinion on whether prisoners should be shot without trial, sent to psychiatric hospitals for years, sent to the gulags to starve in the snow, or whether entire populations should be uprooted and transplanted three thousand kilometres to make a new life in the wilderness. And this was ONLY to voice an opinion.

Nowadays they interfere in the minutiae of a country's jurisprudence and FORCE that decision upon the offending country(ies). This is not what it was set up for - it has been taken over by people who have no interest in leaving each country to do it's own thing, but are trying to force the world into one PC mould which has been exposed for it's idiocy for decades now.

Only the loony fringe of leftist greenies and animal rights activists still believe the garbge that emantes from this asylum.

I have to agree with you. Human rights just as an issue should not have members such as Saudi, China and The Vatican in it.

Only the loony fringe of leftist greenies and animal rights activists still believe the garbge that emantes from this asylum.

Using the same logic. Only the deluded via child inculcation could believe in Catholicism.

Nowadays they interfere in the minutiae of a country's jurisprudence and FORCE that decision upon the offending country(ies).

The court isn't sitting poised to pounce on anything it considers an infringement; it only 'interferes' if someone takes a case to it.

Which can only be done once a case has gone through all the courts of the member country.

At the moment there are three cases going through the British courts arguing against the financial requirements for family immigration which came into effect in July 2012, requirements which over 40% of the British population can't meet, on the grounds that these requirements are unreasonable and so interfere with the right to family life.

So far, the government has lost the at each stage but appealed the decision to a higher court. Eventually, the cases will reach the ECtHR.

Even then, as the Guardian article linked to above shows, if the government do lose then although the treaty obliges them to act, they can delay implementing the ruling indefinitely.

On the history side, the convention was not set up to curb the excesses of Stalin. The USSR and it's satellite states in Eastern Europe were not members of the Council of Europe at the time and so not an original signatories to the ECHR nor original members of the ECtHR. Any rulings which the court made would have had no effect on these states.

Such was the fear of communist subversion at the time that most of the articles of the convention contain the clause "except where necessary in a democratic society" so that those suspected of such subversion could be excluded from protection under the convention.

You may consider that "Only the loony fringe of leftist greenies and animal rights activists still believe the garbge (sic) that emantes from this asylum." but you should remember that all the fundamental rights and freedoms you enjoy are contained in the ECHR and protected by the ECtHR.

To bring us back towards the actual subject of this thread; it is these same fundamental rights which allowed the killers of Lee Rigby to plead not guilty and have a trial. Many may think that they shouldn't have had one; but if we had denied them their day in court then we would have been no better than them.

I have to agree with you (Humphrey Bear). Human rights just as an issue should not have members such as Saudi, China and The Vatican in it.

What?

None of those states are signatories to the ECHR nor members of the ECtHR so are not bound by either.

Maybe the world would be a better place if they were.

Where I struggle with ECHR, is we apply the rules to people who deny these rights to their victims.

I have to agree with you (Humphrey Bear). Human rights just as an issue should not have members such as Saudi, China and The Vatican in it.

What?

None of those states are signatories to the ECHR nor members of the ECtHR so are not bound by either.

Maybe the world would be a better place if they were.

Sorry, wrong body. I somehow doubt that the UK will be part of the UCHR for many years longer and I agree with this. UNHRC is also a joke.

Where I struggle with ECHR, is we apply the rules to people who deny these rights to their victims.

Worse is they often continue to call for these rights to be denied.

There is at the moment a lot about alcohol in the British media. Just too much, too freely available.

The government (any British government - no diference between parties) are in thrall to the alcohol industry. In times gone by (when I was but a young lad) booze was only sold in pubs and licensed 'off-licences' - like the liquor stores of the US - specialising in selling beer, wine and spirits to the public. Nowadays every supermarket and many corner stores sell booze at cut prices, so the off-licences have become almost extinct. The few left are specialising in wines, offering advice with sales, stocking good cellars of the better quality wines, so on and so forth.

These Muslim owned/managed corner stores

Most corner stores are actually owned by Sikhs or Hindus.

Where I struggle with ECHR, is we apply the rules to people who deny these rights to their victims.

So are you saying that we should descend to their level of barbarity?

That anyone accused, or even suspected, of, for example, terrorism should be denied the full processes of justice and the rule of law?

We tried that in Northern Ireland in the 1970's; worked out really well; not.

We live in a civilised society, and the safeguards of that society should be applied equally to all. Otherwise we are no better than the terrorist.

There is at the moment a lot about alcohol in the British media. Just too much, too freely available.

The government (any British government - no diference between parties) are in thrall to the alcohol industry. In times gone by (when I was but a young lad) booze was only sold in pubs and licensed 'off-licences' - like the liquor stores of the US - specialising in selling beer, wine and spirits to the public. Nowadays every supermarket and many corner stores sell booze at cut prices, so the off-licences have become almost extinct. The few left are specialising in wines, offering advice with sales, stocking good cellars of the better quality wines, so on and so forth.

These Muslim owned/managed corner stores

Most corner stores are actually owned by Sikhs or Hindus.

Most corner stores are actually owned by white British nominal-Christians. Many others are owned by other British citizens of foreign extraction, some Sikh, some Hindu, some Buddhist, some Muslim, some Jewish, maybe a few animist, maybe some atheist. Also some may not even be British citizens. I was specifically referring to Muslim owners in this instance because my earlier post is about a Muslim initiative to ban alcohol sales.

There is at the moment a lot about alcohol in the British media. Just too much, too freely available.

The government (any British government - no diference between parties) are in thrall to the alcohol industry. In times gone by (when I was but a young lad) booze was only sold in pubs and licensed 'off-licences' - like the liquor stores of the US - specialising in selling beer, wine and spirits to the public. Nowadays every supermarket and many corner stores sell booze at cut prices, so the off-licences have become almost extinct. The few left are specialising in wines, offering advice with sales, stocking good cellars of the better quality wines, so on and so forth.

These Muslim owned/managed corner stores

Most corner stores are actually owned by Sikhs or Hindus.

Most corner stores are actually owned by white British nominal-Christians. Many others are owned by other British citizens of foreign extraction, some Sikh, some Hindu, some Buddhist, some Muslim, some Jewish, maybe a few animist, maybe some atheist. Also some may not even be British citizens. I was specifically referring to Muslim owners in this instance because my earlier post is about a Muslim initiative to ban alcohol sales.

I don't have a problem with an American viewpoint. I do have a problem believing anything put out by extremists, whatever their political or religious or other persuasion.

BTW, you can't even get your own comment on the report correct!

It is not, as you claim, a UK government report on the murder of Lee Rigby.

That murder is still the subject of an on going court case, and any report by any one which drew any conclusions about the murder before the end of the court case would be contempt of court.

BTW, the march in Brick Lane was not to protest about the sale of alcohol; it was to protest about Muslims selling alcohol!

But the full facts don't fit your prejudice.

If you want facts just read about the two Muslims jailed recently for setting up a patrol to enforce Sharia in London, Sharia applies to everyone, as any non-Muslim living in a Muslim majority Country knows only too well, as do those having their lives blighted by living in a culturally enriched location within a non-Muslim Country.

By the way, just to humour you for a moment, supposing you were correct about the protest being solely against Muslims selling alcohol (though quotes by Anjen Choudary contradict this), do you think that's acceptable, any more than it was for Nazis to stop German citizens from listening to Jazz?

Meanwhile one of the two murderers had a short lived bout of remorse and renounced Islam for Christianity, before promptly being brainwashed a second time and reverting back. The prospect of being decapitated by a prison canteen knife must focus the mind.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/beheader-of-british-soldier-converts-to-islam-a-second-time-in-prison/

Meanwhile one of the two murderers had a short lived bout of remorse and renounced Islam for Christianity, before promptly being brainwashed a second time and reverting back. The prospect of being decapitated by a prison canteen knife must focus the mind.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/beheader-of-british-soldier-converts-to-islam-a-second-time-in-prison/

They shouldn't allow religion within prisons , and religion should not be part of any justice system ( I believe they are slowly getting rid of the bible in courts )

Religious fanatics , wether they be Christian , Jew , Muslim or whatever are all mentally sick , they are all trying to justify a cause by someone who doesn't exist ,

We will all be laughed at in 1000 years time when they look at the world and what we have made it , similar to how we look at people 5000 years ago who worshipped the sun and gods of water ect ..

I believe if these 2 can repent themselves and admit what they did was wrong , there is no such thing as Allah and all Islam does is bring pain and suffering to he masses we might get somewhere

They shouldn't allow religion within prisons , and religion should not be part of any justice system ( I believe they are slowly getting rid of the bible in courts )

You cannot ban belief any more that you can malaria. Should children be inoculated against irrational belief before they are exposed to it? Yes.

The Bible in courts is not getting rid of at all. For a good while now people have the choice to swear telling the truth be that over some object or none. An ever growing number of people are ditching swearing on a holy book and standing up for their own actions be it the Qu'ran or the Bible. Slow process but people in general are starting to be open with each other.

If you (7by7) want facts just read about the two Muslims jailed recently for setting up a patrol to enforce Sharia in London

Such 'patrols' are not endorsed nor supported by mainstream Muslims in the UK; indeed, they comdemn them. East London Mosque responds to “Muslim Patrols” enforcing sharia in Whitechapel

......just to humour you for a moment, supposing you were correct about the protest being solely against Muslims selling alcohol (though quotes by Anjen Choudary contradict this), do you think that's acceptable, any more than it was for Nazis to stop German citizens from listening to Jazz?

Supposing I was correct? If I am wrong about this, then so is every major media outlet in the UK!

If quotes from Choudrey contradict this, produce some.

He certainly does not have the support of mainstream Muslims: as any media report which asks them will show. For example: Brick Lane traders hit back at hate preacher’s anti-alcohol march.

Here's the view of some ordinary Muslims: Anjem Choudary does not represent us. Warning; the video linked to contains reasonable views from reasonable people who are Muslims which contradict your prejudices; but I'm sure you'll recover.

The UK is a free country and, provided they stay within the law, people are allowed to protest about anything. Comparing this protest to Nazi Germany is really scraping the barrel. You must be very desperate.

Meanwhile one of the two murderers had a short lived bout of remorse and renounced Islam for Christianity, before promptly being brainwashed a second time and reverting back. The prospect of being decapitated by a prison canteen knife must focus the mind.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/beheader-of-british-soldier-converts-to-islam-a-second-time-in-prison/

You really love that ultra right wing hate sheet; they've certainly brainwashed you.

From a more reliable source: The London Evening Standard. Lee Rigby murderer Adebowale 'is borderline schizophrenic recommended for Broadmoor'

Prof Eastman added that after his arrest, Adebowale had converted from Islam to Christianity because of “jinns” which told him to give up his Muslim faith.

He said: “It became clear that his expression in the belief of Christianity was brought about because of the jinns. But he then came back to Islam because it helped him to get rid of the jinns. He described voices saying negative things about Islam but thinks Islam is going to help him.”

7x7 - sorry, but you are being brainwashed by the 'nice' people who think that if you have a black or brown skin you cannot be condemned for any fault, because you were subjucated by the 'nasty' whitey. This view is promulgated by the BBC and most of the mainstream media, supported by our legislators.

There may be a fair amount of truth in some of this, but frankly not all whites are bad and not all non-whites are saints.

Anjam Choudary has thousands of followers and his hate-speeches are available for public consumption. This is purported to be his public web-site - http://www.anjem-choudary.co.uk/ - although I have not verified this. As he is a lawyer he is aware of exactly how far he can push his public declarations on the subjects close to his soul. And he exploits his 'rights' to free speech while still screaming that his opponents are breaking various anti-hate-speech laws.

There is a lot of hate in the East End. There is also a lot of tolerance. But tolerance can be taken too far. Why should we now tolerate such hate-mongers? Going back to the thirties and Oswald Moseley, the East End rose up against him and his Black-Shirt movement and were much less than tolerant of his political views. Do you condemn such actions? I certainly do not. Extremist views must be attacked in every way possible - reasoned argument does not hold ground against fanaticism. For instance it took 27 years of hard time in prison to convert a terrorist leader in South Africa into a passable politician.

I fail to see how you have managed to draw such a conclusion about me and my views.

My posts in this and similar topics show that I have consistently condemned murderers, terrorists, extremists, hate mongers etc.; regardless of their religion, race, skin colour, whatever.

I don't know how many followers Choudrey has; he may have thousands of followers, but there are approximately 2.5 million Muslims in the UK. He cannot be said to represent the views of the majority of British Muslims any more than the BNP, EDL etc. can be said to represent the views of the majority of non Muslims in the UK.

I've already given examples of how the majority of British Muslims view this man; this petition is another: Britain's press corp, journalists, producers, planners and writers: Stop giving a platform to Anjem Chaudary

A point made very well by Jenny McCarthy in her Telegraph column is the role of the media in Choudrey's ability to spread his hate

The media has a dirty little secret, for a start: it is attracted to extremists. The hot-heads get airtime because they are eager to appear, and they carry with them the forbidden frisson of street violence that broadcasters find exciting. (Remember the glad flurry when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were first unleashed upon the studios of London?) And yet the more sustained exposure the likes of Choudary receive, the more – in some insidious way – they are treated as what they started out pretending to be: official representatives of true “Muslim” thinking.

@7by7

I'll reply to your points in the order you made them. Firstly 40% of UK Muslims are in favour of Sharia law, the 60% you refer to as 'mainstream' no doubt don't and would condemn the Sharia patrol. To cite the East London Mosque as a voice of moderation is a classic bit of taqqiya though. Said Mosque supposedly condemns homophobia, yet invited four anti-gay speakers in January this year alone. Aside from this one of it's founders is a member of an extremist organization that threatened those breaking Islamic norms and is a supporter of terrorist group Hamas to boot.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100200020/east-london-mosque-condemns-homophobia-yet-advertised-four-anti-gay-speakers-last-month-alone/

And as this blog has repeatedly documented, the mosque itself and its annexe, the London Muslim Centre, host a constant stream of viciously homophobic and other hate preachers. In June 2011, after coming under particular pressure on the subject, the mosque promised: “Any speaker who is believed to have said something homophobic will not be allowed to use our premises.”

Secondly Choudary commended the two jailed Muslim patrol members as deserving a pat on the back. It is blindingly obvious that if he commends acts of Sharia enforcement against non-Muslims he has the same attitude to alcohol sale or consumption also by non-Muslims

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/anjem-choudary-muslim-vigilantes-who-terrorised-nonbelievers-deserve-pat-on-back-8992944.html

Third, it's a bit rich you having a problem with a Nazi analogy considering you throw such comparisons around like confetti, the latest being on the Swedish rape thread, where my audacity in pointing a finger at the cause of the problem led to you going off in a huff citing the 'final solution' as something I was advocating - knowing full well I'm Jewish demonstrates the depths to which you will sink to in order to stifle debate you disapprove of,

Finally, your point about one of the murderers being a borderline schizophrenic - well alas one of the world's main religions seems to attract new recruits among the mentally ill just as flies are attracted to sh1-t, as if it doesn't have enough issues aside from new converts.

You say "40% of British Muslims are in favour of Sharia law."

Really? Are you saying that 40% of British Muslims want to impose Sharia law in the UK? If so, where is your evidence?

Or are you talking about the percentage of British Muslims who use Sharia law to settle civil disputes? Something British Jews have been doing for well over 100 years with Beth Din. If so, what's wrong with that? As long as, like Jews with Beth Din, they accept that the decisions of these courts are unenforceable under any UK law.

The East London Mosque did have a problem with radical speakers, including anti gays, in the past.

Peter Tatchell said in 2011

“We welcome the East London Mosque’s assurance that it will not give a platform to anti-gay speakers in the future. We urge them to establish a regular, permanent dialogue with LGBTI organisations, including Muslim ones, to foster solidarity between the LGBTI and Muslim communities and to combat both homophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice.

But if the mosque is still allowing anti gays, or any other prejudiced group, to speak on it's premises, this does not invalidate it's condemnation of Choudrey.

That Choudrey says vigilante patrols "deserve a pat on the back" does not mean that other Muslims agree with him. As I have shown; the vast majority don't.

You seem to be under the impression that I am defending Choudrey; read what I have posted again and you will see that I am doing the opposite!

It was you who raised the Nazis, not I. As I said; a desperate ploy on your behalf.

In one post, and one post only, of the Swedish rape case topic I did say that "As a student of twentieth century history; such rants are depressingly familiar." The interpretation you seem to have put on that remark says far more about you than it does me.

I did not know you are Jewish, as far as I am aware this is the first post of yours that I have read where you mention it. But being Jewish is no excuse for being a racist bigot.

Unfortunately, all religions attract their fair share of the mentally ill, extremist hate preachers, violent fanatics etc.; even Judaism.