Repeat it enough times…


by Al-Hack
21st January, 2006 at 8:29 pm    

The British charity Interpal is looking into legal action against blogger Stephen Pollard, the Jerusalem Post and the Daily Telegraph after insinuating it may be a terrorist organisation. A statement by BOND, UK’s broadest network of voluntary organisations, explains:

Interpal is a registered British charity providing aid in Palestine and the Occupied Territories and has been described by the Charity Commission as a “well run and committed organisation”. Following Interpal’s designation as a SDGT [Specially Designated Global Terrorist, by the US govt], the Charity Commission froze their bank accounts and carried out a thorough investigation of the organisation, concluding that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation of terrorist connections.

Despite this, Interpal remains on the US list, and has subsequently been listed by other countries, including Australia and Canada, apparently as a direct result of the US designation. Not only does there seem to be no evidence to support these governments’ decisions, but the process by which organisations end up on such lists and how they can be taken off them again remains unclear.

How can a Palestinian charity not be a terrorist front eh? Blogger Osama Saeed has more on the smear campaign and why there may be legal action. [Via Indigo Jo]


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,The World






91 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. All About Nothing

    [...] Pickled Politics has news of some bad rumblings against the charity Interpal: The British charity Interpal is looking into legal action against blogger Stephen Pollard, the Jerusalem Post and the Daily Telegraph after insinuating it may be a terrorist organisation. But, statement by BOND, UK’s broadest network of voluntary organisations, explains…Link [...]


  2. Tim Worstall

    Britblog Roundup # 49

    Only three weeks away from our first anniversary edition! Get your nominations for next week’s Britblog Roundup in to britblog AT gmail DOT com. This week’s first entry simply has to be Mr Free Market and his astonishing discovery of




  1. NorahJones — on 21st January, 2006 at 9:10 pm  

    I did a little volunteer work for Islamic relief a couple of years ago and was amazed to find how often they were pulled up by the police and other such agencies.

    Spyware on their PC’s, random checks at their offices.

    Predictable.

  2. leon — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:52 am  

    Isn’t this the same charity that George Galloway claims he’ll donate any Big Brother winnings/payments to?

  3. Mirax — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:59 am  

    Yes. He nominated the charity for precisely this reason: challenge the US SDGT designation.

    The charity should have gone to court to clear its name much earlier, if it is innocent of the charges.

  4. Don — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:52 am  

    Much as I loath Galloway , and am wary of anything he touches, surely it is for those who accuse to present their evidence and go to court.

  5. Vikrant — on 22nd January, 2006 at 4:35 am  

    And how does this cocern Asians?

  6. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:12 pm  

    Oh for fuck sake more terrorist supporting dipshit from Al-Hack.

    http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/12_04/interpal.htm

  7. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:14 pm  

    I was hoping you and your cretinist views had left the PP building.

  8. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:38 pm  

    Actually, j0nz, we all deeply hoped that about you. Shame you’re back with more morally-constipated views you mis-interpret from Harry’s Place to bore us with.

  9. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:45 pm  

    Siddarth why don’t you pledge a little more money to Hamas? Now there’s a good boy…

  10. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:48 pm  

    oh yawn.
    why don’y you go desseminate your malformed ideas and anti-Arab hysteria on HP, where it belongs. buffoon.

  11. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:54 pm  
  12. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:56 pm  

    Apparently £6.2 million from Intepal did go to Hamas, however they were ‘unaware’.

  13. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 12:58 pm  

    You’ve gone on record as saying you hate the Independent. So, is this story contradictory or in support of your earlier stance? Actually, forget it, I don’t really care.

  14. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:02 pm  

    Hmm well I linked to The Indpendent in attempt to be ‘balanced’ since no doubt you will see bias in anything to the right of Galloway.

  15. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:06 pm  

    If you have a Galloway-navel gazing fetish, since as an HP reader you no doubt do, PP is the wrong place to be.

  16. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:09 pm  

    Please stay on topic, Siddarth. Any comments about Interpals £6.2 million ending up funding a suicide bomber?

  17. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:22 pm  

    No, funding the family of the dead suicide bomber. According to indy story.

    Here’s a story that was NOT covered on HP: Abramoff’s siphoning of legitimate funds to pay for anti-personel weapons to be used on Palestinians by members of Israel’s own paramilitary groups. Now thats terrorism any way you look at it. Any views from our “cretinous” HP mouthpiece?

    Shall we also talk about the increased surveillance and monitoring of Islamic organisations in the UK? That would that be off-topic on HP (or more like no-topic), but not here.

  18. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:26 pm  

    No, funding the family of the dead suicide bomber. According to indy story.

    Well that makes it ok then.

    Shall we also talk about the increased surveillance and monitoring of Islamic organisations in the UK?

    I would love to. Why do you think that is the case, Siddarth?

  19. Pablo — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:30 pm  

    Siddhartha

    The increased surveillance of some Islamic organisations in the UK is an inevitable result of the current threat to British lives posed by Islamic extremists. The correct response to this is not to blame the Britsih state per se for trying to protect its citizens and the citizens of foreign nations from being killed – it is to blame, primarily, those extremists who indulge in such activity.

    Of course, all such activities should be carried out with full judicial supervision and with absolute and rigourous legal checks and balances. But to cast it as part of the British states ‘campaign against Muslims’ is paranoid reckoning and as a starting point for approaching this issue, it is flawed.

  20. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:33 pm  

    Pablo if you were to follow Al-Hacker or Siddartha’s point of view you would quickly realise that there is a massive conspiracy against innocent Muslims by the ZOG.

  21. Pablo — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:33 pm  

    Having said that, I am of course sympathetic to the threat of excessive use being made of these powers over innocent organisations. But I dont think the starting point for this is to blame the British government. The people to blame are the terrorists, extremists and apologists for suicide bombing.

    If people have difficulty differentiating between ‘respectable’ Islamists and extremists, that is often because there is not much difference between them in statement and belief anyway. Hence things get difficult and toes are trodden on.

  22. Sunny — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:33 pm  

    That story seems to be repeating allegations made by Israeli prosecutors, one that the Jerusalem Post made (wrongly). The Charities Commission has already cleared Interpal, as stated above, so an Israeli allegation doesn’t mean its true.

  23. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:34 pm  

    I would love to. Why do you think that is the case, Siddarth?

    Most probably because, at its broadest, security policy makers are peopled by thick as pig shit and unqualified dipshits like you who can’t tell the difference between a charity organisation and a terrorist organisation.

  24. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:39 pm  

    Interpal’s founder, Ibrahim Brian Hewitt, a British citizen who converted to Islam reportedly in the 1980s, told the British daily Guardian newspaper it was “possible” some of Interpal’s funds may have gone to Hamas, but he claimed Hamas’ social services were not managed by the terror group’s “military wing.”

    So even the founder admits money goes to a Hamas. More here

  25. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:40 pm  

    Pablo if you were to follow Al-Hacker or Siddartha’s point of view you would quickly realise that there is a massive conspiracy against innocent Muslims by the ZOG.

    Hoo hoo. When in doubt, brandish the conspiracy theory card. Textbook HP claptrap.

    For people who don’t follow, this means that Muslims who protest about the increased surveillance are doing so not because of a concern of their civil liberties – but because they are all deranged terrorists hung up on conspiracy theories.

    Come on, grow up.

  26. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:45 pm  

    What about the civil liberties of the 52 dead in the London attacks, Siddartha? I think you doth protest too much.

  27. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:45 pm  

    So even the founder admits money goes to a Hamas

    If you’re going to make a case, don’t supply us with quotes that contradict your own case.

    Read the qualification by Hewitt that you cut and pasted:

    but he claimed Hamas’ social services were not managed by the terror group’s “military wing.”

  28. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:47 pm  

    If you would trust Hamas to not give money towards terrorism then you are even more morally and intellectually backward then I first thought.

  29. Pablo — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:50 pm  

    Siddhartha

    I dont think you are a ZOG madman but I do think that they exist and often are the engine for many people’s pro-Palestinian activism.

    Your characterisation of the increased surveillance of Islamic orgs as being motivated by some kind of generalised unfounded suspicion of Islam rather than a sometimes crude attempt to keep track of extremists and terrorist supporters is an example of a complete inversion of actual facts. The truth of the matter is that some people really are active and sympathetic to terrorism out there – calling those who cant differentiate between the tree-huggers and the bomb-huggers dipshits and bigots completely misses the point. If some people have to acknowledge the potential for abuse of these surveillance powers it is also incumbent on you to wake up and acknowledge that some of this activity is neccessary because of the threat to life posed by Islamist extremism.

    And differentiating between tree huggers and bomb huggers is not an easy thing to do.

  30. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:52 pm  

    Oops. Should have said;

    “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

    A statement from a certain Hamas Charter

  31. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:53 pm  

    And if you can’t transfer this anti-Terrorist outrage towards groups within the US Republican Party , then you’re more selective, ahistorical and biased than I thought was possible.

  32. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:56 pm  

    Pablo,
    I’ve total agreement with your statement (31).

  33. Pablo — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:57 pm  

    Hamas advocates suicide bombing Israeli civilians and is active in carrying out these attacks. Two British citizens were recruited by Hamas to carry out these attacks at Mike’s Bar resulting in the death of innocent people through suicide bombing by the guys from Hounslow and Derby.

    Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

    Given that there is a link between British suicide bombers and Hamas, and that British suicide bombers are now actively seeking to slaughter British men women and children on the streets of London, Manchester, Birmingham, and given that Interpal has admitted that money it has raised has gone into the coffers of Hamas, there is a prima facie case for at least examining the links between all of these organisations.

    That does not mean they are guilty. But it also does not mean that those who make and investigate that link are in any way to be condemned. You have to blank out a whole load of facts about a very nasty ideology of murder and terrorism and real events of mass murder carried out by British citizens in order to make that accusation – or to view the surveillance of said organisations as being motivated in bad faith.

  34. Pablo — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:58 pm  

    Siddhartha

    Thanks – I dont for a minute believe you are that way inclined at all. I respect your stance on these issues.

  35. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 1:59 pm  

    Wow it’s already Bush’s fault! What about Bliar? Now they’re the real terrorists, of course….

  36. Pablo — on 22nd January, 2006 at 2:01 pm  

    jOnz

    I think you are unnessecarily baiting Siddhartha now.

  37. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 2:03 pm  

    I think you are unnessecarily baiting Siddhartha now.

    :) I’ve been rumbled!

  38. El Cid — on 22nd January, 2006 at 2:09 pm  

    The slanging match on this thread is distracting, but cut out the noise and one returns to Al Hack’s original question: How can a Palestinian charity not be a terrorist front eh?
    How indeed.
    j0nz: you’re right to bring up the donation to Hamas. I don’t buy the qualifications made. As for looking after a suicide bomber’s family — I mean, talk about a martyr’s incentive programme!
    However, I don’t see what good it does to cast doubt on Interpal’s claim that it was ‘unaware’ of the donation by putting it in apostrophes. What proof do you have that it wasn’t? Answer this question: do Moslem charities have any legitimate role to play in Palestine/Israel?

  39. Siddhartha — on 22nd January, 2006 at 2:09 pm  

    Just as there are textbook reactions made by non-nuanced Muslims , there are also textbook anti-Islam reactions like the ones that our esteemed HP-drone j0nz trotted out on this thread. They’re both arse-clenchingly embarrassing in their own right.

  40. Bored Refresh — on 22nd January, 2006 at 2:18 pm  

    Why don’t the Palestinians just handover the occupied territories! And why do we have to be dragged into this -the Palestinians should accept they’ve never Stood a chance.

    And as for all those muslim countries with Oil -why don’t they hand over their fields to a new UN mandate?

    Just accept it.

    The struggle for equality of races and respect of cultures is over – submit to the new order. You can’t lose what you don’t have.

  41. Pablo — on 22nd January, 2006 at 2:22 pm  

    Troll

  42. BevanKieran — on 22nd January, 2006 at 2:39 pm  

    And differentiating between tree huggers and bomb huggers is not an easy thing to do.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/09/wmid109.xml

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,947846,00.html

    The two British suicide bombers made contact with ISM before going on to bomb Mike’s Place. (How this was faciltated isn’t made clear in the articles.) The separation of Hamas into military and social care services is irrelevant with regards to funding. (It would matter in the event of an Israeli air-strike).

    Reminds me of Bill Bailey’s musing of whether the receptionists and caterers at the Axis of Evil are themselves evil.

  43. leon — on 22nd January, 2006 at 2:39 pm  

    Bored Refresh, I don’t know whether you’re attempting sarcasm or just too depress me!

  44. Harry (no, not THAT one) — on 22nd January, 2006 at 3:14 pm  

    Virtual Stoa has some good coverage of Pollard’s attempts at smearing Interpal, and other occasions when he has posted and retracted.

  45. NorahJones — on 22nd January, 2006 at 3:30 pm  

    Bored Refresh.. ha ha ha ha. yeah.

  46. Al-Hack — on 22nd January, 2006 at 5:22 pm  

    The Virtual Stoa article is ace. J0nz, if you’re so concerned, why don’t you ring up the Charities Commission to assauge your fears? Or maybe you could ask the Jewish Board of Deputies. The just finished apologising for making the terrorist claim too. That won’t stop you though eh. Every Palestinian is potential terrorist, so what is the point of debating?

  47. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 6:22 pm  

    Thanks for the articles BevanKieran.

    Al-Hack, are you denying that Interpal has given money to Hamas charities?

    Interpal is clearly not a terrorist organisation, however it’s clear that with all the corruption in the Palestinian ‘government’ that if Interpal give to charities run by Hamas, inevitably some of the money will be used to support it’s military wing. And this is the crux of the problem.

    And what is Interpal doing about it? Not a lot it seems, apart from threating litigation anyone who points out that some of the money from their charities has gone to support suicide bombers families…

  48. Bored Refresh — on 22nd January, 2006 at 6:24 pm  

    Not intending sarcasm, to depress nor am I a troll. The reality is the argument is now whether there is any morality remaining for those harnessing the language of human rights on the one hand and unleashing absolute force on undefended people.

    Worse, making those same people indefensible seems to be an achievement beyond anything I would have ever expected in any advanced civilisation.

    Make the achievement global – then there is no turning back.

    Depressed? Don’t be, resist – we even have George W. Bush who is anti-war. Better late…?

  49. Vikrant — on 22nd January, 2006 at 6:31 pm  

    Hmm.. people maybe you didnt hear me.

    WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ASIANS?

  50. Rohin — on 22nd January, 2006 at 6:33 pm  

    Vikrant, last time I checked Palestine was in Asia!

    No OK, I get your point, but we don’t want to strictly limit what we talk about on here do we? I foresee gradually changing the topics until eventually it becomes a blog about me and what I think.

  51. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 6:36 pm  

    There is irrefutable evidence that Interpal funneled millions of dollars to Hamas charities in the West Bank, and has on its board several senior Hamas members. It is an every day experience in London to run into prominent Muslim leaders who collect money for Hamas.

    From MuslimWorldToday

    Perhaps they should be suing Muslim World Today.. Now that would be amusing.

  52. Vikrant — on 22nd January, 2006 at 6:37 pm  

    Oh well i know how this works, when somebody accuses Interpal of funding terror pinkos liberals cry hoarse over Islamophobia. These same liberals slander Indian charities (HSS & IDF) on flimsy evidence.

  53. j0nz — on 22nd January, 2006 at 6:45 pm  

    Hehe you got it Vikrant ;)

    Maybe Al-Hack or Siddartha could take a moment to call Tashbih Sayyed, (Ph. D. – editor-in-chief of Pakistan Today and Muslim World Today, California-based weekly newspapers, president of Council for Democracy and Tolerance and adjunct fellow of Hudson Institute) and tell him he’s a HP drone/Islamophobe.

  54. Don — on 22nd January, 2006 at 7:30 pm  

    In Al Hack’s post he linked to Osama Saeed, who has concluded that speculation about the UK government’s plan to act against Interpal was ‘tosh’.

    Any charity in good standing, as Interpal currently is in the UK, is entitled to retain that standing unless very compelling evidence can be brought forward. Equally, any charity that has links, however inadvertent, with a terrorist organisation must expect very close scrutiny.

    It’s hardly suprising that Israel views Interpal as illegitimate; they tend to be sensitive when it comes to suicide bombings and ‘funding the family of the dead suicide bomber’ as a distinction is unlikely to cut much ice in Tel Aviv. The US does whatever the hell it wants. But here in the UK it seems the government is taking no action without firm evidence.

    Oppressive bastards, eh?

  55. Al-Hack — on 22nd January, 2006 at 8:27 pm  

    The last time I checked this blog was about progressive politics, not just anything that relates to India and Indians. I hope that answers your redundant question Vik boy.

    It is interesting you bring up the HSS and IDRF link. I thought you weren’t a Hindutva drone?

  56. Siddharth — on 22nd January, 2006 at 9:10 pm  

    Vikrant, I saw you posted on the dead whale thread. Dying to hear your legimisation on what thats got to do with Asians.

  57. Siddharth — on 22nd January, 2006 at 9:14 pm  

    there’s a ‘ti’ in the bogus ‘legimisation’ word, for you spelling bee types.

  58. Rohin — on 22nd January, 2006 at 10:10 pm  

    I must agree Vikrant, coming to the defence of HSS and IDRF does nothing for the credibility of your claims that you are not pro-Hindutva, as you keep going to pains to point out. You describe yourself as an atheist Hindu, which is odd as that’s not far from how I’d describe myself. However our views differ wildly when it comes to groups like this and VHP/SS/RSS etc. I don’t want to sound high and mighty, but I’ve been through it all, I know a lot of the most senior UK people in these ‘charities’ and I have come to my own conclusions that money will be misused by them.

    Having said all that, there is a lot of shit about Indian charities flying around on the Internet, mostly on Sikh and Muslim websites. Which is why I trust what I’ve seen with my own eyes, rather than anything I read.

  59. Jay Singh — on 22nd January, 2006 at 11:37 pm  

    Rohin

    Lets be honest – the shit about Hindu extremist charities being flung around on Muslim and Sikh websites is very often accurate. If the hysterical pitch of Vikrant style teenagers on those message boards seems shrill, it doesnt mean there are not very real concerns here. And whilst Muslim, Sikh, Tamil extremist organisations have all received mainstream scrutiny, the extent and reach of extreme right wing Hindutva ‘charities’ in Britain has yet to be audited fully. Maybe you should write an article on it for the front page. I will never forget the splendour with which Modi was received by senior businessmen and community figures in Leicester and London just a few months after Gujarat. For some reason this diasporic extremism falls underneath the mainstream media’s radar.

  60. Jay Singh — on 22nd January, 2006 at 11:40 pm  

    Vikrant, I saw you posted on the dead whale thread. Dying to hear your legimisation on what thats got to do with Asians

    Fukkin’ commie pinko pseudo-secular whale.

  61. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:10 am  

    “And whilst Muslim, Sikh, Tamil extremist organisations have all received mainstream scrutiny”

    Have they? I’ve read less about Sikh and Tamil charities in the mainstream media than Hindu, but that’s a crude measure – I may have subconsciously noticed the ones about Hindu groups more frequently.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to defend these ‘charities’ for a second. As I said, I’ve seen the ugly side – and that was the more moderate groups with no official links to nationalist groups (i.e. NHSF and HSS). And I’m sure much on these websites is accurate – but just as Hindutva websites demonise Sikh and Muslim groups, it’s swings and roundabouts when it comes to militant Sikh or Muslim sites.

    If you remember back in the AiM days I bemoaned how much of the money for India’s nutters (nice umbrella term) comes from the UK, US and Canada. I’ve also mentioned it here (although perhaps a post is a good idea, thanks). I don’t think any particular group has been ignored by the mainstream media.

    In a nutshell, I’ve done lots of charity work. I’ve been on missions with various religious groups, worked with them in uni etc etc. My overall experience has taught me to give my money to charities with no religious affiliation and I would advise others to do the same.

    And FUCK that Islamo-apologist whining appeasing lefty swimming mammal!

  62. Siddharth — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:29 am  

    Have they? I’ve read less about Sikh and Tamil charities in the mainstream media than Hindu, but that’s a crude measure

    Its thanks to mendacious turds like Stephen Pollard that we’ve allowed ourselves to pollute the language on this thread by calling extremist organisations fronted by charities as charities or valid charities as extremist orgs. But in the spirit of crude measures, I’ve read next to nothing on Hindutva charities in the UK in the MainStreamMedia. So, I’ll go along with Jay Singh.

  63. Jay Singh — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:32 am  

    Lets face it – the media is so much focussing on Muslim extremism these days that other desi groups generally do fall under the radar unless in extreme cases – like the Behzti affair or when Modi came to England Luke Harding of the Guardian asked the question, why is this man accused of genocide being feted in Britain? My point is, these things are difficult to gauge. In the absence of hard investigative data, to a greater or larger extent we are depending on anecdotal evidence and reference.

  64. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:36 am  

    I of course agree that a proper, objective audit needs to be undertaken on the myriad religious charities in the UK.

  65. Siddharth — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:40 am  

    fucking dead pinko whale hugging arabic named swamp thing screaming about Hindutva Indian charities.

  66. Jay Singh — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:46 am  

    Fukkin’ whale was a Zionist

  67. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:50 am  

    Sidd’s whale-reference is lost on me.

    Goddamn whale conspiracy. When will you guys wake up and smell the coffee? BUSH KILLED THE WHALE. Check my websites for more info: http://www.ireadtoomuchjohngrisham.com and http://www.worldtradecentrekillerdolphintruth.org

    You’re deluding yourselves!

  68. Siddharth — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:50 am  

    fucking pinko whale give them an they inch take a mile. Next there’ll be beaches of the commies wanting to get in. Only good bastard muslim whale is dead bastard muslim whale!

  69. Jay Singh — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:53 am  

    Someone do a google search to see what David Icke has to say about the whale.

  70. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:54 am  

    I can make another Star Trek tie-in whale and time-travel reference here, but I fear no one would get it.

  71. Jay Singh — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:55 am  

    Make it Rohin that Star Trek movie with the whale was brilliant – not as good as Wrath of Khan but still good

  72. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 12:57 am  

    David Icke was interviewed by James Whale. But Jay you don’t know how close you are, Icke once argued that vaccination is a secret genocide and he implicated whales in the plot, I kid you not! The only link I can find is a 404 and it’s not even google cached.

  73. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 1:00 am  

    SHATNER and NIMOY went back in time to find a whale. PICARD went back in time as well. In First Contact, he quotes forth:

    “And he piled upon the whales white hump the sum of all his rage and hatred from days old and present, had his chest been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it.”

    Who can name the book? No googling.

  74. Jay Singh — on 23rd January, 2006 at 1:03 am  

    Moby Dick!

  75. Jay Singh — on 23rd January, 2006 at 1:05 am  

    I have a soft spot for David Icke. He believes we are ruled by reptilian aliens who inhabit the bodies of the leaders of the world in league with the illuminati. When I go nuts, I want to go nuts over something like that, not something small fry. I mean go really brain-crazy doo-lally looney-tune.

  76. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 1:05 am  

    And the Star Trek circle is complete. This is the third or fourth bizarre circle I’ve completed in PP’s comments. I must find the others, they’re my proudest moments.

  77. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 1:08 am  

    Oh yeah – believing you’re being spied on by the CIA is SO yesterday. I mean John Nash totally wore that out. Lizards are the new grey, but this season it’s all about evolution. There are these crazed schizos who believe the world is 5 thousand years old and the world was created in 6 days! I mean, that’s as zany as Icke. Who ARE these mad people?

    I found psychiatry boring, but I loved schizophrenia. Those patients were the most interesting I’ve ever met, including the murderers I visited in prison. The stuff they come up with is priceless, on a par with Icke.

  78. Jay Singh — on 23rd January, 2006 at 1:14 am  

    Do you think that David Icke has serious mental disorder?

  79. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 1:19 am  

    Yup. Mosdef.

  80. Sunny — on 23rd January, 2006 at 2:37 am  

    The poor whale is getting serious abuse for no reason. Leave his/her dead soul alone you infidels! Otherwise I’ll get the Charities Commission on you. Or failing that, Stephen Pollard.

  81. Vikrant — on 23rd January, 2006 at 5:55 am  

    Gee you guys fell for that hook, link ‘n sinker! Well HSS or IDF may well be hindutva money laundering fronts, but they havent been found guilty have they? On one hand you guys defend Interpal (as evidence points out may well have funded Palestinian intifada) whilst one mention of HSS from me, you cry yerself hoarse over Hindutva! Double standards aint it?

  82. Vikrant — on 23rd January, 2006 at 5:57 am  

    fucksie! it should read “hook line ‘n sinker”.

  83. Vikrant — on 23rd January, 2006 at 6:24 am  

    Vikrant, I saw you posted on the dead whale thread. Dying to hear your legimisation on what thats got to do with Asians

    Naah.. me saw ya whining “That fuckin’ bongophobic Hindutvadi neocon brahminist communalist lil’ whale”

  84. Rohin — on 23rd January, 2006 at 1:12 pm  

    I don’t believe I defended Interpal once Vikrant. So I haven’t displayed any double standards – I’m quite consistent in my desire to have no association with any religious charities (well actually InterPal isn’t religious but may have supported religious terrorists).

    You’ve conveniently side-stepped what I said. How come you’re trying to defend charities who are clearly linked to a cause you repeatedly defend but claim to not be a supporter of? Your response was directed at Al-Hack, not me. And no one has “cried themselves hoarse”, please refrain from over-the-top drama which we expect from trolls.

    You say that the HSS or IDRF have not been found guilty, but then neither has InterPal. So whose got the double standards now?

    Either you accept that all these charities need further investigation or you defend them all. You have decided that a Palestinian one is bad and the Indian ones are good. I thought you were smarter than that.

  85. Vikrant — on 23rd January, 2006 at 2:06 pm  

    Wait you didnt get me…. I never claimed to defend HSS or IDF. Look closely, it is they (Sid,Al Hack Co.) who have decided that a Palestinian one is good and the Indian ones are bad.

  86. Siddharth — on 23rd January, 2006 at 2:36 pm  

    Look closely, it is they (Sid,Al Hack Co.) who have decided that a Palestinian one is good and the Indian ones are bad.

    Vikrant,
    No one mentioned the Indian charities until you brought them up for the first time in [54]. Are they “bad”? I know nothing about them, so you tell us.

  87. Vikrant — on 24th January, 2006 at 9:17 am  

    Sid… HSS & IDF may well be Hindutva charities. But theres a big MAY in it. People like Al Hack defend Interpal; when I use their argument to “defend” (it was a bait mind ya) HSS & IDF he calls me a Hindutva drone. Now thats doublespeak aint it?

  88. Siddharth — on 24th January, 2006 at 10:04 am  

    Vikrant,
    You introduced “HSS & IDF” into the discussion and then claim others (“Sid,Al Hack Co.”) called them “bad” – untrue. Now you say the HSS and IDF are possibly nothing to do with Hindutva.
    Whats it all about, Viki?

  89. BevanKieran — on 24th January, 2006 at 10:55 am  

    The following website has informations on funding of extremist Hindu groups in the U.K

    http://www.awaazsaw.org/

    http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=2390&grp=18&cat=184

    It was founded after the gujarat riots in 2002. Not sure if they are still active.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.