HOLY CONTEMPTIBLE
Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 12:08PM 
Well then, I see that the truly wretched Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has launched a stinging attack on US policy, comparing it unfavourably with the British Empire. In an interview with Muslim lifestyle magazine Emel, (Where else for a good Dhimmi to appear?) this grotesque creep says that where the British Empire had put energy and resources into "normalising" lands it took over the US had assumed a "quick burst of violent action" to clear the decks" was it all had to do in Iraq. (There's gratitude for all those US and UK service personnel who gave their lives to liberate Iraq) He also added that the US thought it could then leave others to "put it back together", he said.
He claimed that the US, as the only "global hegemonic power", was trying to accumulate influence and control, rather than territory. But he said: "That is not working," describing the result as "the worst of all worlds". He told the magazine the US had lost the moral high ground since the 11 September attacks and needed to take steps including "generous aid" to "the societies that have been ravaged", a "check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories" and a "demilitarisation" of its presence in them in order to recover.
Druid Williams makes me sick. He is bending over so far to be "nice" to those Muslim readers of Emel that his spine is in danger of breaking - if only he had one. The US has NOT lost any high moral ground. It, along with many other nations, has suffered grievously at the hands of Islam and it has been, if anything, far too restrained in how it has responded. Of course Williams is inherently a pacifist UN-type who sees surrender to Islamofascism as a preferred strategy but I fail to see why anyone should listen to him. I also wonder to whom does he refer when he makes his venomous comment about "others" fixing what the bad Americans leave behind. Al Qu'eda perhaps?
Fools like Williams are an embarrassment and I hope US readers will not think that he speaks for the British people. But I also recall that even as World War Two approached, one of his predecessors, Cosmo Lang, also preached the gospel of cowardly appeasement, so Williams is just one more pathetic excuse for a religious leader who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (17)
Wiliams is an idiot, an a useful one to our enemies. But don't forget that he was put into that position by another enemy of the British people, that Quisling, Tony Blair. Blair knew what he was doing when he put Williams into the position of Archbishop of Canterbury. He intended to leave in place someone who would continue his own work of wrecking the Church of England long after he himself had moved on.
The Church of England should stand alone and sink or swim independently of state support. The Prime Minister should have no say in appointing religous leaders. I agree that the Archbishop has been too one soded in his condemnation of the US.
funny, but i haven't heard the druid-in-chiefs views on infant homicide bombers!
So he doesn't like America? Tell him to go to the back of the line.
What bothers me about people like him is the lies he tells and the facts he skews to further his opinion. He's welcome to his warped opinion of America, but I doubt he would be invited to give interviews like this one if he didn't lie like he does.
Did he also get in a few pops at the Jews while he was at it?
The CofE, long a sect, is becoming a joke. The members are voting with their feet. All that will be left soon is a small core of Evangelicals led by lay preachers.
Thanks Tony. The man who appointed the druid when he could have appointed Nazir-Ali, a proper churchman. Now he has the cheek to attend the Catholic church, leaving this mess behind him.
(Is he a proper signed-up druid, or is that just because he looks like one in that ridiculous costume ?)
I read this interview this morning, it struck me that Williams has taken my evaluation of where you stand question and chosen the Islamists....
Orlando
Religous costumes, particularly those worn by the higher ranks of any faith always look faintly ridiculous.
If one interprets the Dhimmi-druid correctly, can the US regain the "moral high ground" (WTF is that, BTW?) if they were to allow their cities to be attacked in the manner of 9/11?
I'm pretty sure that's what we have to do, Allan. We deserve it after all. Maybe if we had to come crawling and begging for help, then we would be in our proper place.
The man is an utter moron and we would all be better off without and his moronic costume. Where do these people come from and why.
Look at his eyebrow *snort*
Is that Rowan or ROBIN Williams ? What a comedian !
Alan Douglas
He's playing to the world stage and what he thinks it wants to hear - as a senior figure in the CoE he should be more concerned with the rifts in his own church which threaten to render it obsolete or the social ills which manifest themselves on the streets of every town and city of this country. He should be asking why his church has become such an embarassing irrelevancy - all the pomp makes it even more ridiculous
He's got to give interviews to Muslim media, Christians have stopped listening to him.
Just a question - Why do all 'Holy Men' dress up ? They are like women ( no offensive) having many excellent outfits.
The comrade Archbishop is in error. The full passage, which the BBC neglects to report, is:
It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did in India, for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together Iraq, for example.
If this first class idiot bothered to look at Iraq he'd see that the Americans haven't in fact, moved on.
But isn't the comrade Archbishop erroniously criticising the US for not doing what Left has been telling the US to do anyway? Talk about fuddled.
But when has the Left allowed facts to get in the way of criticising the West? Let's not forget, this self-sonfessed 'bearded leftist' went to Sudan at the invitation of the Sudanese government - from where he criticised Guantanamo Bay. He's the communist filth who prefers that Jews are murdered rather the the Israeli government build a fence against terrorists.
Clearly, it's time he was relieved of his duties.
I've done a quick check on Dhimmi-druid and it is confirmed: he did actually criticise Guantanamo when he was in Sudan and omitted to speak on Darfur. That guy is dangerous, and Blair knew it when he (Blair) appointed him as AoC.