I hear that Hitler was sweet to his dog. Mustn't be "simplistic," now! "Taliban can be admired for their faith and loyalty, says bishop," by Jonathan Wynne-Jones and Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, December 13 (thanks to Walter):
The Taliban can be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to one another, the new bishop for the Armed Forces has claimed.The Rt Rev Stephen Venner called for a more sympathetic approach to the Islamic fundamentalists that recognises their humanity.
The Church of England's Bishop to the Forces warned that it will be harder to reach a peaceful solution to the war if the Afghan insurgents are portrayed too negatively.
His comments came as the Prime Minister visited Afghanistan and warned that the Taliban was fighting a "guerilla war" aimed at causing "maximum damage". Gordon Brown said soldiers were discovering improvised explosive devices every two hours....Bishop Venner stressed his admiration for the sacrifices made by the British forces fighting in Afghanistan but also urged the need for a reassessment of how the Taliban are viewed.
"We've been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban," said Bishop Venner, who was recently commissioned in his new role by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
"There's a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the west could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because it's not honest really.
"The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other."
Besides their attacks on the armed forces, the Taliban have also been responsible for public beatings, amputations and executions and have launched bomb attacks on the civilian population in Afghanistan.
They often refer to foreign forces as "Crusaders" in an echo of the religious wars of the Middle Ages....
"The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other."
I think he said that because Christianity is declining in UK and Europe. Almost half of Europe is atheist. He admires their faith and loyalty, not what they believe.
He failed to mention the Taliban fashion sense, a big issue in the Fellini-esque drama of the modern-day Anglican Church. So I refuse to take him seriously till he says one way or the other if he likes the neon-crowned mitred hat. I mean, if he's not going to address serious questions, why pay attention to him? And where, I ask petulantly, does he stand on baggy? Is it in? Or is it out? What kind of church does he think he's running? OH! I'm almost hurt.
Taliban education policies - and I'm talking specifically here about their intensive programme of school refurbishment - particularly girls' schools - is something we should also admire them for..
"...Bishop Venner, who was recently commissioned in his new role by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Says it all.
How could anyone in their right mind admire the murdering Taliban infidels for anything. What planet is this Anglican bishop from? Why doesn't he just quit the "bishoping" business [my own new word] and find a job selling insurance or cars? He isn't fit nor qualified to be a a bishop!!!
Hasn't this Anglican Bishop thought of praising the UK Queen for her youthfulness and her husband for his diplomatic comments?
Actually, the content of one's belief's does make a difference as to whether one's faith and loyalty are worthwhile characteristics. Also, the bishop goes on to state that the Taliban are portrayed too negatively, and should not be demonized. Evidently, Bishop Venner does not have too much trouble with the contents of their belief system either. The Church of England really should be disestablished and its assets sold. It no longer serves any good purpose.
It is like the Episcopal Church in the United States, its sister church. There is little left that is Christian in it, and the decent people left long ago for the most part. It is now little more than a sinecure for leftists who can't make it eslewhere.
Again we see that what would never be said about other totalitarians, e.g., Nazis, will be said by the less than savvy about Muslims, adherents of that spiritual totalitarian ideology called Islam. Amazing how much mileage Islam continues to get because it is a religion. Actually, it's the essence of the problem. People in the West in numbers way too large persist in giving Islam a pass precisely because it is a religion. What they don't want to consider is that a religion can be monstrous. They should.
Mr. Bishop, shop here - par exemple:
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=18977
Simon Néhmé
A Bishop that the Guardian and the Independant readers can now praise and admire
(I cannot seem to set my display name for JW)
I think you are jumping to conclusions. Simply because the schools have been destroyed does not mean that this is an attack on education. Have you never heard of reconstruction and modernization? No doubt with foreign aid these schools will be rebuilt as madrassars, so there.
I think you are jumping to conclusions. Simply because the schools have been destroyed does not mean that this is an attack on education. Have you never heard of reconstruction and modernization? No doubt with foreign aid these schools will be rebuilt as madrassars, so there.
For those who came in late, here's a hilarious parody of the introduction to Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales," featuring the oafish Rowan Williams:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/02/heere-bigynneth.html
We poke fun at this but the situation here is dire also.
Does anyone remember Reverend Wright? How can you be a so-called Christian and crawl in bed with the PLO? This makes my head hurt.
And the clown cleric has now apologised for his support of Islamic jihad Taliban!
He's SO principled!:
"Armed forces bishop says sorry for praising Taliban"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8411574.stm
"The Taliban can be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to one another, the new bishop for the Armed Forces [The Rt Rev Stephen Venner] has claimed."
Right. And John Wayne Gacy was admired for the block parties he threw, and for the clown act he did for children.
Enough of these simplistic criticisms of Rt Rev Stephen Venner. He is very kind to his dogs!
Hey...Mass murderers need love too...
"The Taliban can be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to one another, the new bishop for the Armed Forces has claimed".
I admire Crips, Bloods, The Mexican mafia, M 13, skinheads, soccer hooligans, and Charles Manson...All of them have dogged fixations to their 'faith' and a really strong sense of loyalty to homies...
"The Taliban can be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to one another, the new bishop for the Armed Forces has claimed."
The same could be said for wild dogs.
We should admire talibans' sense of ecology, especially respect for trees. You need only one book - and that is all. Save all the paper. Kill anyone who disagrees.
Right on I agree a 100 %.
It is a disgrace that any human being who loves life can say such a thing.
I guess the beheading of Jews is OK in his book too.
He has a couple screws loose in his head.
The Waffen SS could be admired for their conviction to their faith (or ideals), and for their sense of loyalty to each other, too. Unfortunately, little things like their penchant for murdering unarmed prisoners of war (more than once) got in the way. My dad and his fellow soldiers had their own way of dealing with thugs like this when they were caught. I don't see the difference between them and the SS anyway. And this guy Venner is a bishop to the British armed forces?? What a morale booster!!
No wonder the Anglican church is falling apart.They try to
justify all immoral and antisocial acts.
Yes, Hitler liked dogs, and children too. However, that did not stop him from poisoning and shooting his own dog, and his cronies from poisoning and then shooting their own children, in that bunker they were hiding in, as the Russians were coming, rather than, say, getting them out to somewhere safe, possibly with a note saying "these individuals are innocent, have mercy."
Those who are truly evil will eventually even turn on those they seemingly truly care about; it makes no difference.
The Taliban's faith and convictions? Well, I am fully convinced, and have faith that I'm right, that this guy is a doughbrain.
Papa Whiskey - :) I love Rowan Atkinson, even moreso after reading his protest against the idea of blasphemy laws. I wish Blackadder could go pay this "bishop" a visit.
Oh, sorry, I'm not too bright in the morning. Thank link referred to Rowan WILLIAMS (I saw "oafish" and "Rowan" and well ..)
Blackadder ought to go visit that clown, too.
"We've been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban," said Bishop Venner, who was recently commissioned in his new role by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
...................
That would be the same Archbishop who declared that the imposition of Shari'ah law in the UK WAS "inevitable".
The Rt. Rev. Stephen Venner is "Bishop to the Forces"—that means this treacherous fool is supposed to be spiritual counselor to *Britain's armed forces*.
God help them.
This reminds me of when the Archbishop prayed for the Argentinians in the Falkland's war and how upset Thatcher and others were at this outbreak of Christianity from an otherwise lame archbishop.
[Isn't it amazing how respecters of diversity get so offended when a bishop actually is Christian and true to Christianity....]
If contributors here want to be taken more seriously than a kindergarden kid throwing a tantrum, you really need to be more thoughtful.
How is what the Bishop actually said so offensive?
He makes the point that that the enemy are humans too and can and do display some charactartics that we admire and call good.
I am married to a descendent of a German soldier who stayed behind and maried a non German after the war. Now my Grandad happily demonises the Germans and supports, without reservation, the bombings of civilians that in his view sped up the end of the war but many nowadays would question. (For the record, I think the 100k dead in dresden was barbaric and evil of us but that doesn't mean I think Hitler was good just that we can be evil too).
However, My grandad thinks the world of my spouse descented from a german people he readily domonises.
So descended form a demon is my spouse that he admires greatly....
Can you reconcile that? His attitudes and conclusions are therefore flawed. So too are your attites, if you are demonising any group of people.
So if you are a demonising sort, step back and remember that one big reason we class hitler, germans back then, taliban, and taliban supports as wrong, is because they demonise and dehumanise the outsider...
Either we purge evil from amongst us by death and destruction or we encourage those that are evil to leave their evil ways behind and embrace truth and goodness.
As a bishop of a church that expects and encourages the wicked to become good, if he didn't try to address the problems with out attitudes and judgementalism something would be wrong.
Next time you pass a church or Cathedral called St Paul's remember that St Paul started out with the wickedness that can easily be seen as similar to Taliban leaders and Imams all over the world; he was zeleous, puritanical, and oversaw and encouraged public executions of dissenters.
Perhaps those quick to demonise Islamic people would be expected to find the teachings of Jesus and Bishops in His Church offensive because they are quilty of demonising fellow people?
And to those narrow minded (possibly American right wing) Christian contributers on here, you display an alarming judgementalism which should give you fear and trembling when you remember Jesus saying "how you judge others, so shall you be judged".
I'm sure Bishop could have expressed things better as I am sure I could and you could.....
oh dear he just said that hes been taken out of context ...whos he been hanging around?
This reminds me of when the Archbishop prayed for the Argentinians in the Falkland's war and how upset Thatcher and others were at this outbreak of Christianity from an otherwise lame archbishop.
[Isn't it amazing how respecters of diversity get so offended when a bishop actually is Christian and true to Christianity....]
If contributors here want to be taken more seriously than a kindergarden kid throwing a tantrum, you really need to be more thoughtful.
How is what the Bishop actually said so offensive?
He makes the point that that the enemy are humans too and can and do display some charactartics that we admire and call good.
I am married to a descendent of a German soldier who stayed behind and maried a non German after the war. Now my Grandad happily demonises the Germans and supports, without reservation, the bombings of civilians that in his view sped up the end of the war but many nowadays would question. (For the record, I think the 100k dead in dresden was barbaric and evil of us but that doesn't mean I think Hitler was good just that we can be evil too).
However, My grandad thinks the world of my spouse descented from a german people he readily domonises.
So descended form a demon is my spouse that he admires greatly....
Can you reconcile that? His attitudes and conclusions are therefore flawed. So too are your attites, if you are demonising any group of people.
So if you are a demonising sort, step back and remember that one big reason we class hitler, germans back then, taliban, and taliban supports as wrong, is because they demonise and dehumanise the outsider...
Either we purge evil from amongst us by death and destruction or we encourage those that are evil to leave their evil ways behind and embrace truth and goodness.
As a bishop of a church that expects and encourages the wicked to become good, if he didn't try to address the problems with out attitudes and judgementalism something would be wrong.
Next time you pass a church or Cathedral called St Paul's remember that St Paul started out with the wickedness that can easily be seen as similar to Taliban leaders and Imams all over the world; he was zeleous, puritanical, and oversaw and encouraged public executions of dissenters.
Perhaps those quick to demonise Islamic people would be expected to find the teachings of Jesus and Bishops in His Church offensive because they are quilty of demonising fellow people?
And to those narrow minded (possibly American right wing) Christian contributers on here, you display an alarming judgementalism which should give you fear and trembling when you remember Jesus saying "how you judge others, so shall you be judged".
I'm sure Bishop could have expressed things better as I am sure I could and you could.....
From post above...Either we purge evil from amongst us by death and destruction or we encourage those that are evil to leave their evil ways behind and embrace truth and goodness.
Yes indeed, encouraging apostates to apostate is a worthy goal...but in order to do that, something or someone has to clue them in as to why Islam is evil...Complimenting a jihadist for being true to his faith, might sound like a good thing to do to the uninitiated, but in reality it is not very bright...And leads to someones injury or death...The Taliban are not boy scouts, they are tough guys, and your not going to lure them away from their 'evil' ways, by giving them any kind of compliments, or slack at all. To do so encourages them as they see it as a form of surrender...
I'm really puzzled by this sort of crap.
I'm inclined to the view that Christians of earlier periods were made of sterner stuff than this Bishop Venner. (Does he really deserve that title?)
Once in a while I wonder if it isn't merely that the news people of earlier times would never think of asking military opinions of the Christian clergy -- certain that they would hear something along the lines of ... well, that isn't what Jesus would have us do.
But I don't think so. I think that the clergy used to understand that Christianity was not a suicide pact. I just can't imagine this sort of namby pamby crap being said about the nazis by an army chaplain during WWII.
But then, I can't claim to actually know much about this sort of thing.
Somebody want to shed some light on this?
I think people should bear in mind that not all Anglicans are as foolish as this embarrassing bishop or, for that matter, the even more embarrassing current Archbishop of Canterbury, last year's winner of Dhimmi Internationale: as examples of the non-foolish, I could mention the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, and apostate-from-Islam now Canon, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, author of 'Global Jihad' and 'Faith, Power and Territory' and of a new book about the apostasy law in Islam (straight down-the-line discussion of the facts, which are not pretty). Or Rev. Charles Cleverly of Oxford: he and his congregation at St Aldate's kicked up a big protest when a nearby mosque proposed to start broadcasting the adhan.
Or Rev Dr Mark Durie, Anglican priest in Australia, who contributed to Mr Spencer's anthology "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance", and has just written a pretty good book about dhimmitude, called 'The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom".
The Barnabas Fund, which was founded by Canon Sookhdeo, is an Anglican charity; its primary focus is help and advocacy for persecuted Christians in Muslim lands, though it also takes an interest in Christians under the boot of nasty non-Muslim dictatorships like China, North Korea, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. The Barnabas Fund does not pander to or flatter either Islam or any other destructive ideology.
The Anglican communion, like the Catholic communion and most other large Christian bodies today, is a grab-bag comprising everything from virtual nonbelievers who can't quite bring themselves to publicly opt out of the Faith altogether (frankly, it would be better if they did) right through to fervently orthodox and deeply faithful people. Would people rather that we got up a bunch of Inquisitions and starting hunting down and rooting out heretics? Today, we more traditional Christians tend to grit our teeth and put up with them and try gently to persuade them out of their follies, in the hope that they may mend their ways.
Esmerelda Weatherwax, who posts here infrequently and who with Hugh Fitzgerald helps maintain 'New English Review', is a member of an Anglican Church - a large, lively, busily evangelising congregation. Like me, she is a member of the Mothers' Union, an organisation of Anglican women with a worldwide membership...including women in places like the Sudan, Iraq (!!) and Nigeria, where their mission to teach and practise the Christian understanding of marriage and family brings them slap bang up against the sharia-pushers.
exposesithlords you're saying we need to be more thoughful, less demonising (ie."demonise Islamic people"), and that being judgemental seems riddled with contradictions. Maybe, but this is Jihad Watch and we're having a particularly violent global jihad right now.. I'd be prepared for more amazement.
What the bishop said was disappointing coming from someone that high up this late in the conflict. He sounds out of touch, even his 'of course they're evil' retraction contributes little. Why couldn't he be more like the Windsor boys William and Harry who talk about serving in the fight on the frontlines.
Exposesithlords, as a Christian I can 'see' where you might be coming from, if you are attempting to emulate 'what Jesus might say'. However, there are principles to be applied to the understanding of Scripture, if we are to understand Scripture at all.
For example, several Scriptural principles underlie what I consider to be perhaps the finest construct of philosophy: The Declaration of the Independence of the United States of America. Foremost is the right absolute to life. Without life, all is meaningless. No-one has the right to take my life (or yours) on any grounds outside of a properly designed and maintained legal system which examines thoroughly and dispassionately as many of the circumstances surrounding a (potential) death as is humanly possible. Self-defense must be validated. Accidental death must be validated. All avenues must be exhausted before a death penalty can be imposed, if such a penalty is necessary.
To establish such a legal system, much reference was made to Scripture. The underlying principle is Context. There are parts of, particularly, the Old Testament that many Christians today find distasteful; such as the destruction of Sodom and the near annihilation of the Canaanites. But in their proper context, it can be presumed that these peoples were fit only for destruction. And, before you ask, the Sodomites were not vaporised because of their homosexual inclinations. They were vicious in their treatment of strangers and of those fellow citizens who found their behavior revolting. The Canaanites were equally vicious, even in their treatment of each other. No-one would approve human sacrifice today, especially of infants, but this was one of many practices carried on by these inhabitants of what would become Israel.
No-one would approve of human sacrifice today, or would they? Rowan Williams apparently does. Stephen Venner seems to approve of the 'faith' of the Taliban, as if 'faith' were the true yardstick by which to measure human beings. No other criteria needed. Both are guilty of inexcusable ignorance and moral turpitude, courtesy no doubt of the red ink infusion of PC into most universities. Both are ashamed of the Source of their 'faith'. They will answer...
Human sacrifice is promoted today. Whether in the form of human shields (God pity real soldiers who have to face this awful dilemma), so-called 'suicide' bombers, the beheading of non-combatants or the endless stream of major and minor Beslans, the god of Islam demands blood. Human blood. Endless streams of it. In perpetuity. Any Christian who does not reject the texts and tenets of Islam outright, uncompromisingly and permanently, is either a coward or a fool. The God of Israel, our Father, suffers neither lightly.
If Taliban, or Hamas, or Hizb'allah or any other person is faithful to the tenets of Islam, then s/he is fit only for destruction. The question is: How do we stop the endless blood-letting that 'Allah' demands without becoming ourselves no better than the Taliban?
Sigh... Give thanks for the men and women who serve in our military and 'welcome to the real word'.
"The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other."
And I can "perhaps" admire Maoists, NAZI SS officers, and gangs of teen rapists for those stirling qualities, as well. Oh, how blind, how simplistic, I've been until now.
The problem with Christian leaders (and laymen) spouting this kind of stuff is the red flags it tends to raise in the minds of atheists and agnostics ... and should disturb other Christians and people of other (non-Muslim) faiths as well.
It's reminiscent of a Jerry Falwell type of statement. Remember when he immediately shot off his mouth and basically saw 9/11 as "divine retribution" against, well, everyone but those he considered to be good religious people? It translates into "Who cares WHAT they believe, they believe in a god (and only one), who cares what's he's named, these people are RELIGIOUS and so stick by them and to hell with the unbelievers, the poytheists, etc.
When one sees Muslims spouting their hate-crap, and then sees people calling themselves Christians (especially when they're in a position of authority of some sort) prasiing them for their "faithfulness" etc, what are we _supposed_ to think? Do people really think that the distrust yjsy atheists/agnostics tend to have towards Christianity and Christians was pulled out of someone's butt for no reason at all?
Of course, I'm not talking here about the rabid leftwards types who deride Christianity while kissing Muslim butt, simply because they hate anything white and western, I'm talking about even the thoughtful and generally Christian-friendly atheists/agnostics who tend to post here regularly.
Yes, we see the difference between thoughtful, mainstream Christianity and Islam, but the Falwells and the Venners are like, well, the pigs and the humans at the end of Animal Farm - hard to tell the difference between the two, and in the end, they're both against the barnyard critters.
It can be difficult to wish to make an alliance with someone you fear that, in the end, might come stab you in the back for the same reasons the common enemy once did it over. How many common Christians might not like Islam, or Muslims, in general, for rejecting Jesus, but admire it when Muslims babble on about "traditional family values where the man is ultimate head of the household", anti-homosexual rants, and similar against "fornicators" and "evolutionists" and whatnot? Yes, we're probably talking about the uneducated (in religion and most other matters as well), but they amount to a disturbing number of people.
Atheists, and homosexuals, and other groups, are ultimately at risk from both ends of the spectrum - from leftist multiculturalists who don't give a damn about you if you're white and were born in the West, and the far-right who might secretly admire the Muslim way of enforcing "God's law" on everyone whether they like it or not. Even if not all of us can see the danger coming at us from both ends. Yet.
And for the Anglican church to state anything that even smacks of this is, well, shocking and frightening, really.
smithers, would you say that Jihad today if more violent than historicaly?
I think, at any point in history, where people have been at the receiving end of Islamic life they would view it as a particularly violent time.
I do like excpetions to rules, so if someone could point out a period and place where Islam was peaceful, I'd be interested. So far my moslem friends and contacts have basically come up with times and places that on further investigation are as real as Shangri-la.
I think there is a very real problem with people demonising and the opposite - angel-ising (?!). In fact we are more quilty of meeting an nice moslem (either outwardly or genuinely) and deciding Islam is peace and no threat.
Many people were swept in supporting Hitler because of the charm of the Nazi's and their envoys in the UK and ridiculed Churchill. Truth is always inconvenient so those who expose Islam will be ridiculed for the reasons Churchill was....
We need to be able to say that there is good and potential for good in the people who display the worse examples of Moslem behaviour.
We also need to be able to state clearly without compromise what is so werong with Sharia, Islamic thinking, and so on.
We will not change people with bombs, we will change them with better example of behaviour and thoughts.
Having lived in Moslem countries there are many who long for the freedoms of the USA - they don't need bombs to persuade them Islam sucks. However if you demonise them they are the same as us and will stobbonly hold on to their identity. Burning bridges leaves no where to cross over.
My moslem friends are still moslem so is that a failure?
In part yes, but they happen to have changed by violating their Imam's rules not to associate with Kaffir.
So now, they are no longer demonising Jews and other outsiders. They know to question the recieved wisdom and the infallibility of their "scholars" is a thing of the past. They want to be part of a tolerant western society and are no longer sharia supremacists.
I would call the above changes in their lives a success.
When we think. "they are our enemy kill them all," how are we different to them? Islam is hating and vengeful ideology with a henious example of a man they call a prophet. If we are going to be the same, why would anyone want to leave Islam and embrace our values?
Islam is bad because it is vengeful and hating and we can only say that is evil with moral authority if we are forgiving and loving.
[aside for the benifit of out leftist friends. When your skills of persuations relay on name calling (racist, fascist, bigot, whatever (yawn)) you have the same effect on the objects of your scorn as I'm suggesting happens when demonising moslem enemies. Since you can see the error of demonising moslems why employ the same tactic?]
Absurd Britannica one more useful idiot
Why Islamic Militants Hate Women?
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20070503.aspx
I don't have the stats or facts but yeah I think it's more violent now. Me thinks Islam has outgrown the torturing small animals phase and is eager for world domination and glorious bloodbaths.
Demonising - don't worry about that, it's about getting there fustest with the mostest and clobbering the other guy.
So, after weeks of wrestling with the daft signing-in process, at last I get to sling in a few cents.
1. As a person who once gave man-hours, -days, and weeks of dedicated editing to translations of the late, great Fateh Osman's attempts to reconcile Christianity, Judaism and Islam, may I at last compliment Robert on his erudition and thank him for his unflinching stance on modern Islam. For a few moments there, back in the 70's, I really thought we could talk our way through this one. Before Arafat threw the 98% deal back in our faces, before we let the dimwit Saudi's get it right, just the once, for 9/11, thus empowering the whole bahinchote bandar-log to bring us to today's pretty pass.
2. I can't speak for the squaddies, but us matelots never had much time for the God-squad - any 'Man of God' has his work cut out getting respect from fighting men, and the worst of the chaplains posture about like granny necking too many sherries and trying to lap-dance your sister's wedding guests. The Church of England's efforts to avoid the Word of God and engage in 'modern debate' (with whom, for the love of....?) have been cringeworthy for decades. This is just the last in a long series. To tell you the truth, I think I detect a hissy-fit in this latest faux-pas - all the prattle about togetherness in the Taliban could be a reference to the bacha-bhuzi and routine, everyday homosexuality of Irani-Afghan moslems - he wants more of it in the British army, especially from the handsome young soldier who's just turned him down. Fairies at the bottoms of our guardsmen, the perennial English problem and much of the reason for the Foreign Office's perpetual and scandalous Arabophilia - or arnophilia, for that matter, if they're Scottish.
3. Expo, get your history straight and we might start considering more of what you way. Even the Germans don't admit to more than 30K dead in Dresden, and it wasn't a war crime or any other such Soviet cold-war drivel - it was a legitimate and highly successful raid on a town producing ammunition, optics and support for the Nazi regime, Kurt-baby's brilliant book notwithstanding. It also showed the Russians what the Allied air forces could do, a necessary overture to the cold war symphony. Once you start spouting left-wing cant I, for one, stop listening.
4. D.D.'s Rme - nice work, in the gold, every time.