OK, so this is what Jim said, and I guess I have to say that Keith has a valid complaint and that Jim has unfairly distorted Keith's positions in a cheap attempt to ridicule his thinking. Here's what Jim said:

His defence of the killing by the Israeli army, of Turkish aid bringers attempting to break the Gaza blockade.
Defence of the use of chemical weapons on Palestinians (by disputing their chemical nature).
The defence of those in command at the time of the Bloody Sunday Massacre in Derry, absolving those officers in charge and overriding the suggestion that those in charge are the ones ultimately responsible for what happens in situations such as these (the buck stops here?).
The defence of violent sectarian marches (or jolly days out, as he passed them off). The three nights of rioting in Belfast which ensued from one of these, he passed of as being the fault of children - on the single word a priest)   
There are more - but for me, the most telling was the Muslim prejudice marathon, where he attempted to prove, even to the extent of doctoring his evidence by removing awkward passages, that British Pakistanis were cultural degenerates. At one spectacular point he appeared to claim that, as the Catholic clergy had their own customs and traditions, they might be described as a distinct ethnic group, therefore to criticise them for clercal child abuse might be described as 'racism' - I think we were all more than a little gobsmacked at that one.
Keith appears, to me at least, to have a taste for holy wars and racial conflicts, being quite happy to take up the cause of one side against the other.
In response to the trouncing he took on the last thread, he has opened this thread, apparently to once again attack a specific religion/race.
Too much of a coincidence for me, I'm afraid.

Keith, do you care to respond, and tell us specifically what your positions are on these issues?

-Joe-