How my father's uncle was arrested on this day in 1944 and deported to Auschwitz

 (On this day)

At 2.30 in the morning of January 31, 1944, my father's uncle Martin Rozen was arrested by 4 gendarmes. He was living in a room in the house of a widow, Madame Bobières in the village of Sainte-Hermine (Vendée).

This arrest was carried out because the Prefect and the Sub-Prefect ordered it. They ordered it because the local Sicherheitspolizei in Poitiers ordered all Jews in the area to be arrested. He ordered it because the Nazi High Command in Paris ordered it. He ordered it because Eichmann, by 1944, was demanding that the Vichy government hand over more Jews in order that the 'Final Solution' could be carried out in areas that the Nazis controlled.

By luck and persistence, I was able to find out what happened to my father's uncle. After his arrest, he was handed over to the Nazis in the nearby town. He was then transported to Drancy, the Nazi transit camp near Paris. Then after that he was deported to Auschwitz on a cattle train Convoy 68.

The present Mayor of Sainte-Hermine, Philippe Barré came to know of the story of what happened in the village and over several months and more research, he and the village decided to put Martin Rozen (Rosen)'s name on the village war memorial and to name the local park after Martin too. I was honoured to go to the village for the two naming ceremonies.

When the story of Martin became know, this testimony came in. It's my translation.

'Memories, sad memories

We used to come from school to Sainte-Hermine. Coming into the village, on the right was the police station, (which has become 'Le Macis’ cafe). Opposite the police station - a large house where an old lady rented out furnished rooms (today the Bank Crédit Agricole). One of her rooms was lived in by a very, very old gentleman - old to my eyes - more or less 8 years old. Every morning, he waited for us by the side of the road. We didn't ever miss saying to him, 'Good morning, Mr Martin' and he would reply, 'Good morning, children. Always work hard at school'. And in the evening, he was there for us saying, 'Good evening, children. See you tomorrow maybe.'

How I found him to be so nice with his white hair, his blue eyes and his gay smile when he saw us and so sad when we left! And then I was fascinated by this enormous yellow star sewn on to the black coat that he always wore. I didn't know anything at all about the significance of it.

And then one day, there was no Mr Martin anymore, nor the next day or the days after that. I learned from one of my little friends that he had been arrested by the police. Then I forgot about Mr Martin. When you're 8 years old, someone arrested by the police can only be a thief or some other kind of bad person.

And then one day in March 1952, just when I had got a job at the town hall as a secretary, a letter came containing a judgement announcing the death of someone of the name Rozen Chil Mayer, known as Martin, whose last place of habitation was Sainte-Hermine. And everything came back to me of a face and I got to know this terrible story. The only crime committed by Mr Martin was that he was a Jew. He died because he was deported to Auschwitz. He was 54 years old. His death certificate contained the sentence: 'Died for France'. Later, in May 2001, a document came to the Town Hall, asking to add an official statement on his death 'Died in deportation' [as a consequence of being deported?]. It is important that Mr Martin's name is on the war memorial in the village. It's very unusual that I came this way these days, on the way to Luçon, without lifting up my eyes to the window of his room (first on the left on the first floor), and it seems as if I can see him there smiling...so sadly.

Jeanne Baradeau

School child in Sainte-Hermine

Secretary in the Town Hall, 1951-1994.'

Holocaust Memorial Day - thoughts from a BBC studio where I was being interviewed.

Today I spent an hour and a half in a studio at the BBC, talking to 12 local radio stations, one after the other, about Holocaust Memorial Day. I talked about people in my family (Jews) who were arrested, imprisoned, deported and killed in Auschwitz. I talked about how I got to find out the details of how each of them was trapped as the net closed in round Jews in France (where my father's uncles and aunt lived.) I talked about how the Nazi project was to not only eliminate living Jews but to try to remove them from German history and that my project to 'find' them and write about them, was to not let them disappear from memory, or from being known.
Several themes emerged in the interviewers' questions and the answers I gave - and in my thoughts.
1. The Holocaust was a way of eliminating people. It wasn't a war in the usual sense of the word. It wasn't a fight between two or more combatants. You could say that it was a war on people.
2. The Holocaust was carried out by the Nazis and their collaborators. If we say 'Never again' or anything similar, one of the things we have to do is investigate what it was that the Nazis did, before they came to power and during the time they were in power. This involves facing up to the fact that they were the largest political party when they won power, that they brought in two key acts of parliament (the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, which mean that a) they had total dictatorial power and b) that they eliminated most of the political opposition through terror, imprisonment and violence). That their 'project' progressed as their rule progressed and as the war progressed. In short from persecution to genocide.
3. Much as we'd like to say that the Nazis were 'beasts' or 'animals', the really distressing and difficult thing to say is that they were human. And not only that, some of them were clever. We have to try to understand what does it mean to be the kind of clever human who can be someone who can organise, run and enact genocide - several genocides.
4. There was a Nazi project. They wrote about it and explained it. They enacted it. It involved on the one hand producing a new kind of human, one that would require them to eliminate elements that they thought prevented this human from becoming its true form. On the other hand, it involved creating an empire by absorbing lands in the east. In order to achieve this twin aim, the Nazis had to 'get rid' of people. Millions and millions of people.
5. If we say 'never again', it is possible to say, this means 'never again for Jews' or 'Jews must never again be targeted in that way'. It is also possible to see 'Never again' as a hope or wish that there should never again be that kind of genocide for anyone. I'm of this second school of thought, which is all well and good, but since 1945, when that aspiration surfaced there have been acts of genocide. One of the reasons we can and should say it's about all of humanity and not only Jews is that the Nazi project involved killing millions of people who were eg Poles (ie non-Jewish Poles), Roma and Sinti people, Russians, gays, mentally ill and physically disabled people, Afro-Germans, and even people who refused to swear an oath of loyalty such as Jehova's Witnesses, and thousands of civilian oppositionists - socialists, Communists, trade unionists, in camps like Dachau and Sachsenhausen.
6. For those that say, there have been many other terrible acts of genocide down through history, shouldn't we commemorate them? I say yes. I wish there were other Days when we mark the transatlantic slave trade and plantation slavery, or the Bengal Famine or Stalin's starvation of the Ukrainians, or the Famine in Ireland etc. There should not be any kind of league table. Each of these terrible moments of mass suffering should be moments we dwell on, investigate and learn from. How did they happen? Why did they happen? I guess I think, it'll be hard to progress unless we do investigate and understand these things.

The Mission Statement from Goldsmiths Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Team (the one they don't abide by when it comes to planning Holocaust Memorial Day)

 "Equality and Diversity at Goldsmiths

We are passionate about advancing equality and celebrating diversity at Goldsmiths.

Primary page content

At Goldsmiths, University of London, we are deeply committed to equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in both principle and practice. We work to ensure that EDI is embedded across all areas of university life from our policies and teaching to the experiences of our students and staff.

This year, Goldsmiths introduced an Staff Engagement and Wellbeing Plan (PDF) that sets out our EDI commitments for the next three years.

Creating an inclusive and respectful environment where everyone feels they belong is central to our values. We recognise that people thrive when they are seen, heard, and valued for who they are. That’s why we’re committed to removing barriers, addressing inequalities, and supporting the success and wellbeing of our whole community regardless of background, identity, or circumstance.

We know that building an inclusive institution takes sustained effort, collaboration, and openness to change. At Goldsmiths, we are approaching this work with purpose, transparency, and care because EDI is not a single initiative, but a shared responsibility.

The EDI team at Goldsmiths

We are rightly proud of this history. But there is more to do – which is why we have a team of specialists leading our work in this area on an ongoing basis.

Team roles

Waqar Ali – Assistant Director of EDI, Culture and Belonging

Stella Mavropoulou – EDI Specialist

Dinah Amuah – EDI Projects Lead

Yaz Campbell – Race Equality Projects Lead

Our aim is to embed equality, diversity, and inclusion across Goldsmiths and make it a part of everything that we do. Fundamentally, we want to provide opportunities for all staff to develop and thrive in their careers here.

Waqar Ali, Assistant Director of EDI, Culture and Belonging"

I note:

"We recognise that people thrive when they are seen, heard, and valued for who they are."

Lols

My letter to Goldsmiths Equality, Diversity and Inclusion team about the exclusion of Jewish members of staff from involvement with planning Holocaust Memorial Day.

 Dear Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Team

Since writing to you I have 'discovered' that, following the Antisemitism Report, the university made a commitment in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day.

Here it is:

'12. Holocaust Memorial Day and associated events
The inquiry recommends Goldsmiths should:
Include consultation with or consideration of Jewish students and staff at the university.”
In response Goldsmiths will:
Annual Holocaust Memorial Day - Fund and support annual Holocaust Memorial Day event led by Jewish students and staff. '

Can I draw your attention to two phrases: 

'...with or consideration of Jewish students and staff at the university.' (from the Inquiry Report)

'...Holocaust Memorial Day event led by Jewish students and staff.' (from Goldsmiths' response to the Inquiry)?

The Antisemitism Inquiry's Report was published in May 2025. It follows that you have had six months to fulfil your commitment to support HMD 2026,  'led by Jewish students and staff'. This did not happen. Why not? 

You wrote to me explaining that, "Given the breadth of scholarship and creative work produced across the institution, it is not practicable for centrally coordinated HMD activity to identify or include all relevant staff-authored publications outside of the Trust’s nationally promoted resources for the year.'

The sole reason why it was not 'practicable...to identify or include all relevant staff-authored publications...etc' was because you failed to keep to the commitment that the university gave to host an HMD even 'led by Jewish students and staff'. If you had honoured that commitment, you would have found out immediately what expertise and experience lies within 'Jewish staff'. I can't and shouldn't speak for the student body.  

Quite clearly, you are in breach of the university's commitment to host HMD 'led by Jewish students and staff', and indeed in breach of your own 'Equality, Diversity and Inclusion' terms of reference. Can I ask what you are doing in the name of equality, diversity and inclusion, if you are not observing equality, diversity and inclusion? As before, I make the remark that you are pursuing a policy defined by Miranda Fricker as 'Testimonial Injustice'. In other words, you are guilty of the very thing that your team is there to mitigate against. An analogy would be for an 'Anti-racism team' to treat people in a racist way. 

Could I also suggest that if or when you write to me, you don't issue me with recommendations as to what I should do in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day? I am thinking here of you suggesting that I should make contact with the HMD Trust in relation to my books. I found this suggestion patronising and just a little bit offensive. 

I will consult with my colleagues as to how best to take this matter forwards. In the meantime, I will continue to make this matter public. 

Regards

Michael Rosen

Goldsmiths University of London, antisemitism, 14 Jewish members of staff, and Holocaust Memorial Day

 People may know very well by now that a) I work at Goldsmiths, University of London b) there was an inquiry into antisemitism at the college, costing around 450,000 pounds c) the report concluded that management had failed in its treatment of allegations of antisemitism, d) as a result the college decided to put in place an 'Action Plan', e) they did this without approaching or consulting Jewish members of staff, f) they have lied that Jewish members of staff were consulted. g.) they say that they are going to set up mandatory antisemitism awareness training for all students and members of staff.

The Action Plan they have put in place involves (so far) setting up a committee : an Advisory Board made up of people outside the university.

You can read the plan in full here:

https://www.gold.ac.uk/.../Antisemitism-action-plan-.pdf

Let me pick out number 12 as it's relevant to events leading up to Holocaust Memorial Day:

12. Holocaust Memorial Day and associated events

The inquiry recommends Goldsmiths should:

“Include consultation with or consideration of Jewish students and staff at the university.”

In response Goldsmiths will:

Annual Holocaust Memorial Day - Fund and support annual Holocaust Memorial Day

event led by Jewish students and staff. TBC will be responsible for delivering this by the

end of academic year 2025/26.

Governance of the action plan

• Senior Responsible Officer: University Lead for Culture and Inclusion

• Steering Group: Religion and Belief Group

• External Oversight: Advisory panel including Jewish community representation

• Reporting: Six-monthly public progress reports and annual comprehensive review.

---------

From this let me pick out:

The inquiry recommends Goldsmiths should:

“Include consultation with or consideration of Jewish students and staff at the university.”

In response Goldsmiths will...'

----------

I am a member of an ad hoc group of 14 Jewish members of staff. As far as we know there are no more than 2 or 3 other members of staff who self-identify as Jewish. If we're wrong about this, then it can only be because none of those Jewish members of staff have approached us, either positively or negatively.

Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) is proceeding this year (ie on Jan 27) without anyone from management consulting us. This is clearly in breach of the college's own commitment.

On one specific detail, the college produced a recommended reading list for HMD. On staff at the college, they have a someone (me) who has written 4 books on the Holocaust as it has affected his family and produced a 40 minute video including photos, maps, documents etc. In addition to this I've had something like 10 years experience of working with some 20,000 school students and teachers working with these books, as well as giving talks at the Wiener Holocaust Library, and for the AJR - The Association of Jewish Refugees.

If we put this together, there is a clear attitude coming from the college's management, that we are not the kind of Jews that they want to work with. Their problem is that we are ( we allege) most of the Jews in the staff.

There are of course various critical words that we could use to describe what's going on here. The author Miranda Fricker did some theoretical work in this field building on anti-racist studies and in this case she called it

Epistemic Injustice:

this concept highlights how prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker's word based on their identity (race, culture, gender).

She added:

Testimonial Injustice: When an individual or group's contribution is ignored or undervalued (e.g., a minority employee's idea is ignored in a meeting).

Of course we have other terms, 'prejudice', 'discrimination', 'racism', and, yes, irony of ironies, 'antisemitism'. I mean what do you call it when management decides to ignore what their half a million quid report told them to do, and work with Jewish members of staff in their college?

If I felt like racialising the matter, I'd call it 'Jewsplaining'. As far as we know, no one in management is Jewish. In other words, they are telling us how HMD will be memorialised. (Another irony for you: what will I be doing on HMD? I'm booked to sit in a studio in London, and talk to one local radio station after another all over the country about HMD. This will take me something like 2 hours. In short, the national broadcaster thinks it's OK for me to talk about HMD but my own college (where I'm a prof, does not. Is that worth a 'lols'? I think it is.

The latest developments are:

we have written to management in several different ways about this. (Of course we have!)

So far , we haven't had a reply and HMD is now less than a week away.

One last point: we're not sitting on our bums doing nothing but complain about what they throw at us. We're organising a teach-in for February 26, to talk about 'Antisemitism and anti-racism: alternative voices and traditions'.

I think we may need a quick speech on the theme of 'Management? They must be having a laugh. Jewsplaining on show.'

Statement from the Ad Hoc Group of Jewish Staff at Goldsmiths

25 November 2025

 

We are a group of Jewish staff at Goldsmiths who are increasingly anxious about the university’s plans to challenge antisemitism and racism more generally.

 

In June 2025, following the Mohinder Sethi KC’s report on antisemitism on campus, the College drafted an action plan in association with a private consultancy, Six Ravens, but not with Jewish staff or students. The action plan included a two-year timetable to address antisemitism based on a series of broad commitments. It decided on a governance structure, again without any consultation with Jewish staff or students. Implementation of the plan is to be coordinated by a project board led by pro vice-chancellor Professor Adam Dinham and scrutinised by an external oversight and advisory group chaired by Goldsmiths academic Dr Emma Davies.

 

There is currently no list of any actions to be delivered and no publicly available evidence that either the project board or oversight and advisory group have yet met. This is hardly an example of the transparency that the College claims to embrace. We have recently received an invitation from Dr Davies to attend a knowledge-sharing ‘workshop’ but it is very unclear about who will be in attendance and how this relates to the existing governance structure.

 

Requests by our ad hoc group to meet with Professor Dinham to discuss the shape of the action plan governance structure have been repeatedly rebuffed and we have been told that the plan is ‘owned’ by Goldsmiths Council and therefore not up for debate. Instead, we have been offered informal meetings which we do not consider to be part of any meaningful consultation. Our reluctance to engage in future meetings and workshops is therefore based on what we believe to be fundamental flaws in the action plan and its implementation.

 

To date, no one has explained why the university is making a special case for antisemitism as a single example of racism. This argument wasn't made at the time of setting up the Inquiry nor the action plan and now, as the plan moves forwards into 'conversations' and enactment, the argument has still not been made. The college has now spent well over £500,000 at a time of severe financial hardship on an inquiry and action plan without a clear and detailed timetable or buy-in from affected staff and students.

 

We have argued that the College should fold antisemitism into a university-wide programme of anti-racism training but this has been repeatedly rejected. If the argument had been put as to why antisemitism is a special case, then we would at least have something on the table to discuss (and to have a 'conversation' about), but there is nothing.

 

In conclusion, we believe that to progress in this way is wrong-headed, offensive to many different groups in the university and potentially a trigger for antisemitic accusations about 'privilege'. In other words, this process could well result in precisely the opposite situation from the one intended. Imagine a situation in which antisemitism awareness training is being delivered, and someone being trained asks the trainer, 'Why has antisemitism training been prioritised over other forms of anti-racism training?' We do not want to be part of such a scenario in which we would have been incorporated into a position in which de facto we would be in part responsible for this position of prioritising one form of racism above any other.

 

In conclusion, we have been offered informal meetings which we do not consider to be part of any meaningful consultation. We are of course prepared to meet with any individual or group to discuss these issues as we are committed to mounting the most effective challenge both to antisemitism and all forms of racism. However we are reluctant to take part in meetings or workshops that reinforce what we believe to be fundamental flaws in the action plan and its implementation.

 

Signed:

 

Laura Belinky - MCCS

Clare Delijani - TaP

Des Freedman - MCCS

Ruth Garland - MCCS

Yael Gerson - Education

Michael Guggenheim - Sociology

Ben Levitas – TaP

Betty Liebovich - Education

Miranda Matthews - Education

MIchael Rosen - Education

Catherine Rottenberg – MCCS

Beny Wagner - Art

 

I posted this on Facebook on Oct 7 - it concerns the false accusations that I didn't comment on the Manchester Synagogue atrocity.

 For the record, my Facebook page is not private. It's public. Anyone can read what I write and/or share it. 156k people choose to 'follow' me. I have 5000 'friends'. I'm not sure why anyone would say (as they have) that my Facebook page is 'private'. 

I 'shared' the statement below on Facebook on either Oct 3 or 4. The Manchester Synagogue atrocity took place on Oct 2.

 

The statement below (that I shared) was posted on Facebook by the 'Jewish Bloc for Palestine'. 

I agreed with it then, and still do. 

Just like for any of us, I sometimes feel that for some momentous occasions, I can't immediately find the words to match what I feel - but this did. And it made me also think that sometimes the collective response is more important than the individual one. After all, I don't represent anyone and I should always keep that in mind.

Now for the sting in the tale. Over at X (formerly twitter) something unpleasant happened. 

When anyone from the pro-Palestine side expressed regret, sympathy or horror at the Manchester attacks on Jews, they were immediately attacked for being (variously) hypocrites, liars or - worse - somehow responsible for the attacks. Individuals (like Jeremy Corbyn, of course) became a focus for rage and hate. In fact, as this happened so quickly, that immediately put a strong brake on me making any kind of comment. There's just so much personal hate and rage that a body can take! In my case, for the last 7 years or so there's been a constant undertow to that hate and anger: a threat of physical confrontation. 

I've described some of these before, some I haven't. 

They're sufficiently serious for me to take them at face value, so with these, was yet another reason, with feelings running high (some quite legitimately of course) for me to deliberately not express myself on X.

 And, meanwhile, over here on Facebook - a much safer place! - was a statement from the Jewish Bloc that I could get behind and so did.
What's more, within 24 hours of the attacks I was speaking at a public event about one of my books and someone asked me about the attacks and I felt free and safe there to express myself in those surroundings, expressing my horror at what happened and wishing anyone connected to the families every sympathy. (That was the evening of October 2)

In other words, I had found safe ways (away from X) to express myself. But then, lo and behold, up pops someone on X, saying that I hadn't said anything about the Manchester attacks on Jews - more exactly that I was 'too busy to comment', and following that up with a seeming joke reply to my question 'When does the ceasefire begin?' by saying '...at the time you're due to deliver your condemnation of the antisemitic murder on Yom Kippur by an Islamist terrorist.' 

What? 'Too busy'? '..due to...' ? But I had commented in my way in a place of my choosing.  

Well the law operating here is of course, the old one of 'damned if you do', (as with Corbyn et al) 'and damned if you don't'. Other than that I had! (via the Jewish bloc statement and my public appearance.). And then, lo and behold, this tweet condemning me has gathered momentum and loads of people are getting in there, calling me a 'kapo' and the like, because I 'haven't commented'. It's almost as if some people think that because they are on X, that is the whole world. (Is this a new phenomenon born of the digital world? That whatever social platform you're on, you think it IS the world?!

Needless to say, I don't feel like replying over there on X, and saying 'But I have commented' because that will just snowball into another hate-fest of false accusations and/or accusations of bad faith or words to the effect that 'You've got no right to speak on such matters because you're a self-hating antisemitic Jew' - often said from people who keep themselves anonymous anyway...followed up with some implied physical threat to me along the lines of 'A lot of people would have to be physically restrained from getting to him [ie Michael Rosen], including me.' (that's a true one!).

So, I've abstained over there on X but I'm saying it over here on Facebook because this feels safe. It also feels like something that perhaps people should know about as context for what has gone on in the last few days.

On that, here's an interesting snippet. I listened to Tracy-Ann Oberman talking about the attacks. Trevor Phillips was interviewing Tracy-Ann and she said, that the 'placards' on the Palestine Solidarity marches were the 'same' as those from the 1930s which my parents and Tracy-Ann's relatives fought against. Then she said that the 'rise of anti-Jewish vernacular has absolutely contributed to what happened [in and around the Manchester synagogue]'

I thought about that. Have they? Have they 'absolutely contributed' - ie definitely contributed? How could Tracy-Ann or anyone know 'absolutely' or definitely (my word)? Until there is meticulous research and inspection, we won't know and can't know what motivated the attacker. What's more, I might ask, isn't it just a little bit dangerous to dive in and make comments like that before the research and inspection has come out?( If you disagree with me on that, or anything else here, do say so below. Keep it polite.)
Thanks for reading.

SO HERE IS THE STATEMENT THAT I 'SHARED' ON FACEBOOK BY WAY OF MY RESPONSE TO THE MANCHESTER SYNAGOGUE ATROCITY


"Statement by the Jewish Bloc for Palestine last night after the events in Manchester on Yom Kippur:
The Jewish Bloc is horrified and sickened by the murderous attack on the Manchester synagogue yesterday. We send our condolences and love to the families of the victims and all members of the congregation. Nobody should lose their life for where or when they choose to pray.
We were devastated by the news that the Greater Manchester Police operation was responsible for the death of one congregation member and the injury of others, as well as the death of the attacker. It is appalling that shul goers who called the police for help ended up dead at their hands. We stand in solidarity with the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz.
In the immediate aftermath of an attack like this we mourn the victims and offer our support to a community reeling in shock, whether the attack be at a synagogue, school, mosque or nightclub. We are deeply moved by the widespread expressions of sympathy and solidarity we have received from our comrades and friends in the Palestine solidarity movement and a range of Muslim organisations, and are grateful for the support they have offered.
We were shocked when, less than 24 hours after the attack, a relatively new Home Secretary went onto the airwaves to weaponise the fear and grief of our community by resurrecting a slur: that those protesting for Palestine represent a danger to Jews. She is cynically exploiting this tragic event to fulfil a long-standing ambition of successive British Governments: to justify a ban on the mass protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
We are distressed that some of our communal leaders, including the Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue, have also tried to exploit our grief and fear in order to suppress and silence those organising for Palestine.
Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and violent bigotry are on the rise. We will not speculate on the motives of the attacker but we all recognise and condemn the increase in antisemitic conspiracy theories across social media, as well as the dog-whistle phrases now appearing in the speeches of mainstream politicians.
We are a diverse group of British Jews. Some are secular and some were in synagogues yesterday. Many have links to families and friends who will have attended Heaton Park synagogue yesterday. We will be marching again next Saturday, and will continue to take to the streets until we see an end to this genocide and until Palestine is free. We will continue to strengthen our links of solidarity and mutual support with Muslims and other communities targeted by racism. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us."

INCIDENTALLY THIS STATEMENT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE POLICE REPORT THAT INDICATED THAT THE MURDERER WAS MOTIVATED BY HIS ATTACHMENT TO ISIS. I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE JEWISH BLOC BUT PERSONALLY I CAN PUT IT ON RECORD THAT I CONDEMN  TERRORISM OF THIS KIND WHETHER IT'S CALLED 'ISIS TERRORISM' OR 'ISLAMIST TERRORISM'.