A Modern Libertarian

During 2011 the IDF achieved an unparalleled low civilian casualty record during operations targeting terrorists

2011-12-31T10:57:00.000-08:00

The IDF operations were targeting the indiscriminate launching of rockets into civilian areas by Hamas and other terror groups.

Happy new year folks, other bloggers have reviewed the year far better than I could so I shall just say good night to 2011 with this under-reported nugget of information concerning Israel's counter-terror operations. This is from American thinker full text below, also check out Qassamcount for an online record of continuing indiscriminate terror attacks against civilians by Hamas/Islamic Jihad. I'm off out now so happy new year folks! This makes the 'we are all Hamas now' crowd look stupid but we already knew they are stupid. From American thinker:

In a year-end review of countering rocket fire from Gaza, the IDF reports that its retaliatory fire killed 100 Palestinians, including nine civilians. The rest were combatants linked to Palestinian terror organizations. Put another way, the Palestinian fatality toll included 10 fighters for every civilian.The one-to-10 noncombatant-combatant fatality ratio is unique among conflicts around the world. No other army can boast of similar records of minimal civilian collateral damage. In fact, the United Nations estimates that 30 civilians are killed for every 10 combatant fatalities in conflicts elsewhere in the world. That's three times as many non-combatants as combatants.

The IDF's record is the more remarkable when one considers that Palestinian terror groups are deeply embedded in civilian neighborhoods, requiring ever greater IDF pinpoint accuracy in retaliatory strikes as well as extensive intelligence inside Gaza to select proper targets. Also, quite often, IDF commanders will forgo ordering an attack when the potential for civilian casualties seems too high.
Yet, if one reviews mainstream media reports in 2011 about the continuing Gaza conflict, scant attention is paid to the paucity of Palestinian civilian casualties. Headlines regularly announce that "Israel killed 3 Palestinians" -- leaving readers in the dark about who these casualties are or, worse, concluding erroneously that they're probably civilians. And virtually never do reporters dig into the lengths to which the Israeli military goes to spare civilians.

This remains most notable in coverage of Israel's counter-terrorism incursion into Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009. To this day, media like the New York Times, abetted by spurious reports from human rights organizations and the UN's notorious Goldstone report, still buy into Palestinian casualty figures hook, line and sinker, vastly exaggerating Palestinian civilian fatalities while overlooking hundreds of combatant fatalities.

The IDF, which conducted a detailed post-offensive investigation into Palestinian fatalities, found that there were 1,166 Palestinian fatalities, including 709 combatants, from what was dubbed Operation Cast Lead. And it identified every one of them. In three weeks of grueling ground combat, in the face of terrorist fire from amidst Gaza civilians, the number of Palestinian combatant fatalities still substantially exceeded the number of non-combatants -- by a margin of 6 to 4.

These breakdowns, however, were mostly ignored by mainstream media, while overall casualty totals were vastly inflated by the Palestinian side and by self-appointed human-rights groups. And, more often than not, combatant-versus-noncombatants breakdowns never made it into print.
To this day, the New York Times, in referring to Israel's 2008-2009 Gaza offensive, simply mentions that 1,400 Palestinians were killed. Which falsely suggests that Israel used disproportionate force. A breakdown of civilians and non-civilians would throw light on what actually happened. But that king of reporting is not fit to print in the New York Times.
In similar vein, the UN's Goldstone report accepted largely pro-Palestinian statistics to buttress its gross libel that the IDF deliberately targeted civilians.

Ironically, Hamas -- long after the ground war was over -- accepted breakdowns much closer to the truth. Why? Because, on reflection, phony big numbers for civilian deaths and phony small numbers for combatant deaths were apt to minimize Hamas's "heroic" resistance against Israeli forces. So, Hamas belated announced that it had lost 600 to 700 of its fighters - a range quite close to the IDF's conclusions.
But this also is of little interest to Western reporters determined to martyrize Palestinians while maligning Israel and its military.
Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers

FYI - The Sinking of the Belgrano occurred as it DID represent a threat to UK Forces

2011-12-26T05:19:00.000-08:00

Largely missing from the mainstream media channels this one. But then again it is Christmas and this story is still on the fringes. As reported in today's DT, declassified papers as well as the memoirs of a former Intelligence officer David Thorp now state that according to Signals Intelligence the Argentine Vessel was heading towards the Falklands (and therefore UK forces) when it was sank by a British Submarine. Previously it has been held by many and especially those on the left that it was not and that Thatcher was reckless in ordering its sinking. That has now been confined to history as a myth and the likes of Tam Dalyell, the Argentine Government and even the BBC were all wrong. That is all I need to say although I would like to wish all veterans of that conflict on both sides peace. Margaret Thatcher and the UK were right throughout that conflict, a petty fascistic clique of militarists did not serve Argentina well however.

Voting for an open prison

2011-12-22T09:50:00.000-08:00

The Picture says it all - Best Wishes to the Shalit Family

2011-10-18T14:26:00.000-07:00

Image taken from my friend Chas's excellent blog, he has had to modify his campaign ribbon. Congratulations to all of those involved in the campaign to free Gilad. I will leave it there.

Why was this man been arrested for attempted murder? Answer is the state is too powerful

2011-10-06T10:12:00.000-07:00

The picture on the left is taken from Britain needs guns and it provides half the answer for the current situation in the UK. That situation being the one the householder finds themselves in when under threat, why half the answer? Well simply put the part of being on 'hold' whilst waiting for the police is only too true, especially when situations like this occur. However here is the nub of the situation, you can't arm yourself for self protection and so you're defenceless (unless you live in Northern Ireland). So just wait for the police to turn up and trust the rapist/burglar/looter/mob will not do you too much damage. Like sheep the British people walked into this situation in a classic example of moral panic after Dunblane and banned legally held hand guns. Yet it was not necessary as I highlighted in that earlier post and the banning of such items leveraged a huge amount of power to the state.

So where does this leave us? Well as well as being solely reliant upon the police for protection (I know in theory a householder can use self defence but with what an elderly, disabled or sole occupant is helpless unless armed). There is also the fact that even when householders do defend themselves the police when they do eventually turn up arrest them! Sounds strange but it has happened here, A man who has opened fire and wounded a burglar in Worcestershire has been arrested for attempted murder, one question why? So I propose:

1. The repeal of the recent legislation that banned legal ownership of guns. See petition here.
2. An absolute right to defend ones own property see petition here.

If these measures are enacted then you can expect to see a substantial reduction in occurrences such as this. Less crime, more freedom and a classic case of sound libertarianism at work or perhaps we should just go on relying on the state? Anyone care to tell me how many burglaries there are in Texas by way of comparison? Please visit the sites I linked to and debate below.

Is Cheryl Cole now a target for Al Qaeda or does Anjem Choudhary just fancy her?

2011-09-21T07:29:00.000-07:00

Cheryl Cole in Afghanistan which seems to have roused (or aroused)
Anjem Choudhary et al

If you excuse the flippant nature of the title this is in fact a serious issue of course. The sexually frustrated demagogues over at Islam4uk have indeed issued a thinly veiled threat to Cheryl over her recent trip to British forces in Afghanistan. This is of course little more than a cheap inflammatory publicity shot by Choudhary and his ilk. It also employs the usual double speak favoured by violent Islamists, i.e. Don't make a direct threat but imply something could or should happen to an individual or organisation that displeases them. There is every chance a rogue Muslim may harm Cheryl of course, look at the case of the MP Stephen Timms. Timms was stabbed by a woman visiting his surgery, his assailant was a radical muslim influenced by Jihadist websites. The individual later sentenced for attempted murder refused to recoqnise the court as it represented an un-Islamic authority (although like most she milked the benefits system).

So where does this leave our Cheryl? Well she is not subject to the same threat as Salman Rushdie or Jyllands Postern. As it is for now unlikely that AQ will actually form a plot to attack her and her activities have not aggravated Muslims to the same extent as the aforementioned other two. Rather it is a simple intent to intimidate and discourage others from visiting the troops. Is this significant? Yes it can be as other less robust characters could easily decide 'well look I'd love to show my support for the troops but I don't fancy needing bodyguards for the rest of my life'.

As to Choudhary, well his motives are as usual to garner attention for his bunch of welfare dependent ideologues. But it's also likely that he has other baser instincts to satisfy, particularly when you bear in mind what Jihadists are permitted (under Islam) to do to female captives. That is it is acceptable under Islamic law for a Jihadist to engage in rape against the women he captures. However looking at Cheryl I really don't fancy his chances somehow so dream on Andy! It would be funny if you weren't being serious.

So AQ have their sights on the gorgeous Cheryl? They won't stand a chance!

RIP John McAleese

2011-08-28T15:13:00.000-07:00

John McAleese former SAS soldier shown here with participants from the TV series he co-presented.

Very sad to hear that John McAleese former SAS soldier and the leader (meaning the assault team leader on the ground not those who led from Whitehall) has died in Greece of a suspected heart attack. John was a much decorated and well regarded soldier and also one who never stood on ceremony for anyone. Apparently at a drinks party after Operation Nimrod had concluded, he addressed the then PM Margaret Thatcher with the words ‘you at the front get your f$$king head out of the way’. The PM was apparently obstructing his view of the television on which the operation he had just led was being replayed.

After leaving the army John enjoyed minor celebrity status as a presenter of the ‘SAS are you tough enough’ series. Another passion of his acting as an instructor for airsoft gamers, the people who play such games are frequently derided as fantasists by many in the army. Apparently John saw it as a way of encouraging youth to foster an interest in the services according to some; I suspect he just liked to be kept busy.

As well as brave he was highly principled, he was awarded the Military Medal for service in Northern Ireland in 1988. I do not know for certain but I strongly suspect that was for exposing himself to hostile (and friendly) fire to remove a civilian at risk during a major contact. That citation is likely to remain classified but it is alluded to in Mark Urban’s work on the SAS in Northern Ireland.

John adopted a much lower profile after the death of his son Paul in Afghanistan in 2009 and was deeply upset at the loss, which led to him writing to then PM Gordon Brown. His daughter in law also petitioned the government to improve the provisioning of equipment.

I can’t say of course that the British government emerges with the same degree of integrity as John or his son displayed from this saga. As I write the government will be planning to scrap regiments and make them unemployed, yet we still spend how much on foreign aid?

Perhaps the most fitting tribute to John McAleese came from a Facebook friend of mine who had worked with him in London. He remembered a kind, considerate and unassuming man who was rock solid reliable but never spoke of what he had done previously. He only found out John had been on Op Nimrod after speaking to someone else. That’s often the way with brave men, they are not braggarts. Still there’s nothing more to say other than RIP soldier and stand easy and my heartfelt sympathies for his families second tragic loss in as many years, may they have peace.

The text below is from the DT.

The embassy, at 16 Princes Gate, Knightsbridge, had been taken over on April 30 1980 by six separatists from the oil-rich region in west Iran known as Arabistan. For six days, armed with machine guns, pistols and grenades, they held 26 people hostage as they demanded international recognition for their demands for independence.

Margaret Thatcher’s government was adamant that it would not make deals with terrorists, and as tense negotiations with the separatists continued, police surrounded the 56-room, five-storey building. At the same time, an SAS team was assembled to launch a possible assault on the embassy under the code name Operation Nimrod. Some 60 troops of 22 Special Air Service Regiment 56, among them then Lance-Corporal John McAleese, drove from their base in Herefordshire. They were equipped with ladders, climbing ropes and battering rams, as well as with machine guns, grenades and gas-canister launchers. A few doors along from the embassy, the Royal School of Needlework was meticulously examined by one of the SAS soldiers, Stuart MacVicar (known as “Squash Ball” for his compact physique), because its layout was identical to that of the embassy.

Microphones were drilled into the embassy walls; commercial aircraft flying overhead were ordered to travel at lower altitudes, to drown out any suspicious noises caused by the preparations for an assault. Meanwhile, the soldiers studied long-lens photographs, taken through the embassy windows, of the hostages in the hope that they would be able to distinguish them from their captors.

Then, on the evening of May 5, a team led by McAleese stormed the building. The assault had been ordered by the Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, after the terrorists killed a hostage and threw his body outside the building. For the first time, an SAS operation was shown live on television as both ITV and the BBC (which interrupted its coverage of the final of the world snooker championships) broadcast footage of black-clad troops in balaclavas — among them McAleese — abseiling down ropes on to the balconies on the first floor of the embassy, where it was thought that most of the hostages were being held.

In order to disorientate the terrorists, the SAS first exploded a so-called “distraction” charge, which they had lowered through a skylight. The front window of the room were blown out by McAleese and CS gas canisters fired in through the gap. The soldiers then stormed in amid a hail of gunfire. The raid lasted 17 minutes. All but one of the hostages were rescued. Five of the terrorists were killed; the only one to survive, Fowzi Nejad, was sent to prison — he was released in 2008. Returning after the assault to their temporary London quarters at Regent’s Park Barracks, the SAS team was visited by the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who told them: “Makes us proud to be British.” McAleese later said: “We knew what our mission was — it was to release the hostages. My only job at this point is to get on to the balcony, place the charge, get back, blow it, turn around and go back in through the window.”

John McAleese was a Scot, originally from Laurieston, in Stirlingshire, and served in the Army for 23 years, including 17 in the SAS. He was awarded a Military Medal in 1988 for his service in Northern Ireland. After leaving, he worked as a security consultant in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had a brief media career as a host of the 2003 BBC series SAS: Are You Tough Enough?, a documentary in which members of the public experienced the proverbially grueling SAS selection process.

He also acted as an instructor in Airsoft, the outdoor game which offers people a taste of what it is like to experience battle conditions. Participants dressed in combat gear and carrying real weapons (loaded with plastic BB pellets) mimic close-quarter modern infantry fighting.
McAleese said: “You might as well make it realistic. People read books about this SAS stuff and now they can do something similar.”

The last two years of McAleese’s life were marked by the death of his son, 29-year-old Sergeant Paul McAleese, who was serving in the 2nd Battalion the Rifles and hoped to join the special forces like his father before him. Paul was killed by an explosion in Afghanistan on August 20 2009 while attempting to rescue a wounded comrade.

After his son’s death, John McAleese appealed to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown for better resources for the troops serving in Helmand province. He said that his son had complained that there were not enough troops in Afghanistan to monitor areas for explosive devices.

John McAleese, who died in Thessaloniki, Greece, is thought to have suffered a heart attack.
As well as his son Paul, he had a daughter with his first wife. He also had a daughter and a son by his second marriage.

Last Week's riots were a failure of big Government

2011-08-18T02:58:00.000-07:00

In touch with his
feminine side?

Fiddling while 'Rome' burnt? The UK PM above may not be ideologically equipped to understand and tackle the situation.

The term big government needs to be defined of course, what I am referring to is the enormous shift in power from individual to state that occurred post 1945. 1945 saw the election of a Labour government with a major ideological programme to expand the state and develop an all-encompassing welfare system. They also had an electoral mandate to do so having won a landslide victory in the 1945 election. However no government since then has done anything to dismantle the more authoritarian aspects of Atlee's ambitious programme. For instance the NHS an enormous receiver of state revenue is generally well regarded in spite of the bloated bureaucracy and cash cow it has become.

But what of the numerous other 'benefits' that flowed since then. Child benefit which is paid to all mothers regardless of means (thus ensuring the father has no effective role or whatever role or interest he may have had is usurped by the state). Housing benefit another well intended idea that was supposed to remove the slums, however now the state is the landlord. Ultimately the over-reaching meaning of too many of these benefits is that the government is your provider, your father, your bread winner and your landlord. There was a time when families and communities looked after themselves and having strong family values and not excessive statism keeps the government at bay thus protecting liberty.

However the socialist paternalism induced through welfare makes people always look to the state as provider, not their families and themselves the state rules you. So where does this lead and how does it make the riots witnessed last week inevitable? Simple, if you look to the state for everything and then the state cannot provide everything or more of what you crave (due to a recession) then the state is to blame. So being in a state of dependence and feeling entitled to things (as opposed to aspiring for them which is admirable) then you take them by force. After all morally the state can never be an effective alternative solution for rock solid working class families, the likes of which existed in places such as Salford I know my father's family were an example.

However that era has been passed it is now the era of the benefits underclass. The problem with benefits is that they perpetuate poverty and strangle any sense of initiative or moral responsibility from those that receive them. If this sounds harsh I'll accept that not all benefits recipients are criminal scroungers nor were all of the rioters on benefits, but they have fostered a dependency culture tax payers subsidise. The last Labour government did all of this in spades. So the solution is to roll back the state and go back to traditional family values as one thing but there are numerous other things that can be done.

A few of my own suggestions are as follows:

1. Introduce tax rebates for working families, a couple in work will pay less tax each child they produce so long as they remain in work. They could spend the saving on childcare.

2. I've blogged on the oppressive and stupid hand gun ban previously, allow people with no criminal record to own a handgun and keep it for self-defence. They will need it as we have a police force that surrenders the streets to rampaging mobs for hours on end. I pity the shop keepers and others who have suffered as a consequence of the recent violence.

3. Increase the amount of time police officers spend on patrol through scrapping their paperwork, in short stop micro managing them.

4. Help create jobs and wealth for reducing corporate tax and scrapping the 50 pence top tax rate.

5. Celebrate our small business operators and other private sector workers as they are currently the underdogs, but they are the lifeblood of the British economy.

6. Make policing more localised and community based, increase the number of smaller police posts and re-establish foot patrols in areas. This may cost money, well the answer is simple stop foreign aid and spend it at home.

That's just a few ideas, inevitably however the solution amongst many will be for more statism but this must be resisted. Big brother would love to take more power and control social media and internet use, however the result would be truly Orwellian. Typically those on the left are stating that factors such as spending cuts are too blame ignore them, we pay too much tax as it is. Roll back the state and we will get back our streets as well as our dignity and pride. The situation in America would have been different and the debate more honest.

I'm back after a short hiatus - We got married!

2011-08-04T07:09:00.000-07:00

Which way to the pub?

Myself and the boys, it was a glorous day!

I'm back and it has been a while. Reasons for my absence include a pending career change, a wedding (mine) and blogger's block. I will be blogging later on the Norway abomination and a recent book I read, laters.

'When Obama took out Osama, at the Copacabana (Abbottabada). ' Kareokee! - Pure Class!

2011-05-17T23:33:00.000-07:00

The BBC has responded to Louise Bagshawe MP over their lack of coverage concerning the murders of the Fogel family

2011-04-02T05:35:00.000-07:00

Louise Bagshawe MP has complained and has now got a response.

The BBC's lack of coverage of this massacre (which many of you never heard of) was very typical of the corporation, some murders it seems are more newsworthy than others. This is particularly important when the longstanding bias against Israel and in favour of (or at least whitewashing of) the terrorist groups that face Israel. Time and time again the BBC has been called out for such bias and along with other examples it is highlighted brilliantly by Robin Aitken here.

Anyway this example has led to Louise Bagshawe MP complaining about it and she has at last extracted a response from our state broadcaster here. Well done Louise! But before we go any further it is worth pointing out that the worse part of this whole story was the appalling massacre itself, my sympathies are with the Fogel family whose tragic story has already left the front pages and in the case of the BBC was not mentioned.

Full text below:

MP Bagshawe: Overwhelmed by response

The BBC has admitted that the horrific murders of the Fogel family last month should have been covered on their 24 hour news channel. The massacre, in which a three-month-old baby was decapitated and her siblings' throats were slashed, did not appear anywhere across the BBC's television channels, and was mentioned only briefly on the broadcaster's news website. The BBC gave no mention of Hamas' statement praising the attack or of celebrations about the killings in the West Bank, yet did cover the Israeli government's announcement about settlement construction the following day. The broadcaster's poor coverage was highlighted by Louise Bagshawe, Conservative MP for Corby, who registered her disgust at what she called the BBC's "inexcusable" failure, in the JC as well as on Twitter and in a comment piece for the Daily Telegraph.

Ms. Bagshawe, a member of the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport, called on the BBC to admit their "lack of even handedness". She also demanded a list of the other stories which were featured on BBC News 24 on March 11, in preference. Her complaint was passed to the BBC's director of news, Helen Boaden, but it was five days before Ms. Boaden replied. During that time Ms Bagshawe received thousands of messages of support. In her response Ms Boaden said: "I agree with you that the significant nature of this murder of an entire family meant it should have been included on our television news output." However, she denied that the BBC had ignored the story "either because we did not care or because we pursue an anti-Israel agenda". She instead blamed "a remarkably busy weekend" because of the disaster in Japan, events in Libya and the spring meetings of the Liberal Democrats and the SNP which had to be covered "to ensure due political impartiality". "[These] left little room in the main television bulletins for a host of competing stories". Ms. Bagshawe said: "I'm not wholly satisfied with the answer which does not reflect the gravity of the lack of coverage. I would consider the matter finished if the BBC gave an expression of regret because of the hurt they have caused the Jewish community." She added: "I believe that this shows that the BBC will listen and will not merely reflexively defend a clear mistake."

Major 'Dick' Winters - Legend of WWII has passed away

2011-01-11T02:11:00.000-08:00

Major Winters died aged 92 on 02 January.

British actor Damien Lewis portrayed
Dick Winters in the HBO mini series
'Band of Brothers'.

This is very sad news Richard Winters, the former CO of 'E' Company, 506 PIR has passed away in Pennsylvania to which he had retired. His actions during World War Two were immortalised in the television series 'Band of Brothers' which was based on the book by Stephen Ambrose. Firstly I would like to say how sorry I am and pass on condolences to his many friends and family. Major Richard Winters was a hero and a good man and as is typical of such characters was modest and reserved. A good article in the DT on Winters can be found here. I've also embedded a video clip that has his former soldiers discussing their CO. The free world owes gentleman such as Dick Winters a great deal, RIP soldier, stand easy.

PM reduce fuel tax now! Don't increase it!

2011-01-10T12:48:00.000-08:00

Now what could be better for the discerning

Libertarian concerned at rising fuel taxes

than an ethanol fuelled Hummer! (That ain't

me in the picture by the way!)

Well it has been a while since I blogged, I won't bore anyone with the reasons, but family and work commitments plus blogger's block all contributed. It seems that our PM Dave Cameron may be considering ditching another election promise (the previous ones were to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Constitution and carry out a referendum on the Lisbon treaty). This time Dave Cameron may be thinking of allowing a Labour instigated rise on fuel duty to occur. Please don't PM, in fact you must reduce the cost of fuel tax, here's why:

1. Fuel tax hurts lower and middle income earners the most, it hinders small businesses like taxi firms etc.

2. Reducing it would increase substantially individual liberty as well as freeing up the aforementioned small businesses. An individual could travel further and thus sell more and earn more.

3. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that an increase in it is in any way better for the environment, confining people to fuel poverty is a no-brainer.

4. We pay far too bloody much at the pumps already!

5. Fuel taxes are amongst the most regressive and authoritarian as they hurt individual mobility and freedom of movement the most.

6. The sort of people who argue in favour of fuel taxes and even for increases in them tend to be very peculiar, usually neo-Marxist environmentalist head cases. Such people are extremely antagonistic towards freedom of the individual needless to say.

Please do not increase fuel tax PM!

Oh and happy New Year!

Was the Iraq Worth it? Irish Man Paul Kane's View

2010-10-07T10:50:00.000-07:00

A marine

I will post this out of interest. It's a well written individual war memoir by USMC Reservist Paul Kane. It appreared in the Irish Times here. I wish all the best for Paul and thank him for his story, its a good account of how many veterans feel. Plus it is a well articulated view of it from a Serviceman's perspective. Full text below:

VOICE OF EXPERIENCE: Marines we interviewed consistently expressed two hopes to us: that by this war the Iraqi people would have a better future; and that their own kids would never fight in the Middle East, writes PAUL KANE

IN 2003, I was an unlikely and unexpected participant in the Iraq war. At age 39, I was a “recovering venture capitalist” who’d made millions, and lost them and his business in Ireland, everything lost in the tech-stock crash of 2000. I lost everything I thought at the time was important.

Following Hemingway’s invocation that the world is a fine place well worth fighting for, I decided in the wake of my failure to make myself useful. Life experience and being Catholic had taught me that everything usually comes down to a handful of people. That in a tight spot an individual can make the difference, change the course of events, and maybe save lives.

I had been a US Marine in the late Eighties and decided just before 9/11 to return again, doing part-time service with a Marine Corps reserve intelligence and training unit at Quantico. On March 17th, 2003, a few days before the Iraq war began, my Marine colonel called: “Two questions, Kane. What’s an Irishman doing home and sober on St Patrick’s Day? Second, what are you doing for the next 15-weeks or 15-months?” The next day, I reported to Quantico and prepared for deployment to Iraq.

I will never forget my experiences or what I saw in Iraq. I would never want to forget. It was a brush with the “very real” world; there is a positive power to adversity that makes you appreciate what you have, what should be a priority, that makes you stronger and sounder, rich in what matters.
The surreal nights at Diwaniya sleeping rough in 115 degree temperatures in an abandoned building that had been looted of everything but the dust, listening to automatic weapons firing on our perimeter and howling wild dogs and cats; the Pioneer spy drone buzzing overhead looking for bad men trying to sneak up on our patch of earth; driving at 90 miles an hour in convoys, lickety-split through sniper zones; carrying an injured British soldier to a chopper only to later get the radio call, “He’s gone”; two fanatical black-clad Fedayeen discovering that their ambition to kill us exceeded their ability, eviscerated by a stream of 50-calibre rounds from the sky; seeing an eight-year-old Shia boy sent airborne and bloodied by a speeding hit-and-run taxi as he stood beaming at the roadside, waving us welcomes.

As I lay on that kiln-hot concrete among snoring Marines trying to ignore the night sounds and steal some sleep, an irony hit me. Three years ago now, I was likely sitting in Dobbin’s posh Dublin bistro with a crisp white table cloth having lunch and noshing with the brie-and-fine-Chablis set.
The ching-ching of glasses and chortling with a colleague in the Aer Lingus Elite Club; him off to Marco Island, me off to Palm Beach; him happily our consiglieri for years, enjoying the dosh and media limelight, me later “Paul who?” when we went down, denied three times to three papers. During our last session together as bits of our company fell to earth, he, our own Captain Renault from Casablanca, hysterically blurted: “I am shocked, shocked to hear that gambling was going on here!” We handed him his last fat fee. During those dark days of the Irish elite, only Zig and Zag still returned calls.

But in the end, the only one responsible was the captain who found the iceberg, that fella in the mirror. Now I’m here on hell’s half acre cuddling up to an M-16 rifle and serving as an appetiser for sand fleas. My first year nuns from St Camillus, reached in retirement with this news, not one whit surprised.

Holy mackerel, how I musta really pissed off God! Sweet Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Fadder Abraham you grew up in this neighbourhood, whoever has their radio set on “receive”, wake me from this, help me out here. I remember thinking to myself: “If I ever get out of here, I am gonna settle down, and have a zillion kids.”

Part of our mission in Iraq was to do “collections”. This was military parlance for gathering insight from Marines. What worked? What didn’t? Lessons learned. Dawn to dark daily, we were “Oscar Mike” (On the Move) tracking units, interviewing and surveying more than 6,000 combat Marines across Iraq in Hillah, Safwan, Ur, Nasiriya, Karbala, Kut and points in between. It was Club Med on a budget with rifles. The war in Iraq officially ended on August 31st. But war never ends for those who fight, nor for the Iraqis who live in this war’s wake. Unfortunately, Plato got it right: “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

It has been eight years of strife and suffering and seeing the face of evil, not infrequently all made worse by our own civilian leaders’ misreads, hubris and missteps. The list is long. But there were the small victories, small kindnesses, and small noble acts that never make the news. The evil of war is made smaller by the camaraderie that warriors experience in a world where every decision may mean life or death and by manifestations of concern for others that you would never witness were you not in combat.

Was the war worth it?

If only there was a simple answer. Were I king, would I have led us into war? No. Hindsight is 20/20, but those calling the shots were combat innocents and clueless as to what they were unleashing. Would that in 2003 we had a military veteran like Abraham Lincoln at the helm rather than someone who landed, ironically, on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln to pronounce: “Mission accomplished!” Do tell, who neglected to route that memo updating those nice men in the insurgency?

President Lincoln’s brilliance at wartime execution was well chronicled in a recent biography by James McPherson, Tried by War. It was Lincoln’s hard-earned personal wisdom, ability to endure serial failures and constant challenges, daring use of strategy and available resource, balancing of interests, and keeping his friends close and his rivals even closer, that enabled him to prevail. In a word, Lincoln was a leader.

Similarly, President John F Kennedy’s brush with war left him an idealist without illusions. He kept his own counsel during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis that nearly brought nuclear Armageddon, precisely because he had served in uniform, been to war, and had his ship sunk in combat. Kennedy was not overawed by the cigar-chopping general with a constellation of stars on his collar who disdainfully told him, “Sir, you have few options on Cuba except ‘surgical strikes’.” JFK knew that using terms for precision and for bombing in the same sentence was nonsense. Kennedy knew that generals, like senior leaders in any human enterprise or endeavour, deserve no quarter or special deference. And generals, like many banksters, regulators and politicians, recent events have revealed, usually fall into one of three categories. There are the exceptionally sound and capable, the committed mediocre, and the stunningly incompetent. No bell-curve distribution assumed.

Do I think the Iraqis will now have a better future?

My gut says yes, despite our bungling. Did it have to be so painful? No. Could Saddam have been dispatched by another strategy? Likely, yes. Were more combat veterans in the room when wars were discussed, there would likely be fewer wars, and the ones we did fight would be fought with fewer blunders and prosecuted so as to prevail.

Those who fight in wars, be they just or unjust, morally or immorally executed, have the noble experience of having been actively engaged in protecting those around them in war, fellow soldiers and many civilians, and saved and protected lives. Not many people wake up in the morning with that being a life experience they possess.

Men who knew nothing of combat like pro consul L Paul Bremer sacked the Iraqi army in May 2003 and left us Marines scratching our heads in disbelief. With the stroke of a pen, Bremer beggared soldiers and their families, more than three million Iraqis, overnight, giving untold momentum to insurgency. And then there was The Quartet: Rummy, Cheney, Blair and W. Enough said. But despite us, and the bad hand they were dealt, I do believe the Iraqi people will prevail and the unseen force that moves through life accompanying adversity will see them on to better lives – little consolation though this is to the dead, wounded, mourning or displaced. We had leaders, but we had little in the way of leadership. Personally, I owe a big thank you to Saddam and W.

One door closes and another opens and the unforeseen comes to you. Failing in business was the best thing that ever happened to me. Had I not failed, I would have bounded along, an oblivious fat-cat businessman, and never gone back to the Marines. I would have maintained my steady diet of suits as colleagues and compadres. Never really seeing outside that circle, never getting down in the dirt and meeting some of the most able, tough and resourceful, wickedly funny and selfless human beings it became my pleasure to know. There would have been no war for me. Some innocent Iraqis and perhaps Marines who are alive today would be dead. I never would have gone on to accept an appointment to hide at Harvard after the war, where I met my lovely wife.

Not a day goes by that I don’t think of Iraq. Or the fact that there are Marines in harm’s way somewhere, right now, while I go about my life. I think back about those things we Marines hoped would come from this war. Aside from the nuts and bolts issues, those 6,000 Marines we interviewed consistently expressed two hopes to us. They hoped by this war the Iraqi people would have a better future. And they hoped their own kids would never return to fight in the Middle East.

I hope and pray for those things every night when I tuck Kieron and baby Ella into bed.

Paul Kane was a Fellow from 2004-2008 of the John F Kennedy School’s International Security Programme at Harvard University. President Obama awarded him the Navy and Marine Corps Medal last year for heroism during a 2008 subway rescue.

Freedom on Trial in the 21st Century!

2010-10-04T11:19:00.000-07:00

This is it folks, the first day of Geert Wilders trial in the Netherlands for shock horror offending Muslims. All I will say is that Geert Wilders should not be on trial, even if people find his statements offensive he should not be tried. Freedom is ebbing away any decent democrat would defend Wilders in this instance. He has not incited violence or harm against anyone. The trial is political, immoral and if successful the death knell of democracy in the Netherlands. Please debate me on this below if you wish. I support Wilders 100% even if I don't 100% agree with him. He has a right to a say. I will reiterate, he has not incited harm upon anybody.

A new Aim for our Coalition- Repeal the hand guns ban of 1997. The facts are Liberal Firearms law = Less Crime

2010-08-01T10:04:00.000-07:00

As civilian ownership of firearms has been curtailed
by Parliament the Police use and variety of weaponry has
increased exponentially (I support the cops but our government
should not have all this power)

This I accept to many (usually the ill-informed) is a strange subject to blog on. Namely the very important need as I see it to liberalise Britain’s gun laws. Why you may think as well as shudder and regard the issue as well as the author as crazy. In fact in British culture in general people who like guns or want to keep them are often regarded as being a bit loopy. But for me the issue is simple. A law abiding citizen should be allowed to own firearms, further more they should be allowed to use them in self defence of their property until the police eventually arrive.

Also did you know that gun crime has increased fourfold since the 1998 ban on handguns was introduced? Did you also know that countries with more liberal gun laws such as Switzerland and Israel have a fraction of our crime? Finally when someone attacks your property, what is your sole choice in the UK? You guessed it to be a victim of crime? That is all. I am calling for as a minimum, the hand guns ban of 1997 to be repealed. The law that exists in Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands should be the norm. Finally I will show below the article from BBC online in which the American academic Joyce Malcolm provides her view. My view is that HMG should be willing to trust its citizens to be armed, otherwise why should we trust HMG? Please debate this issue in the comments I warmly welcome contributions from the US and those opposed to my view below. Onto Joyce Malcolm:

Yet what we need is more guns, not fewer, says a US academic.
"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.

For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.
JOYCE L MALCOLM
Professor of history, Bentley College, US
Author of Guns & Violence: the English Experience
Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program
Click here to have you say on this story
Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.
According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".
Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.

Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of history, is author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in June 2002.

Jonathan Sacerdoti on Al Jazeera discussing the Gaza flotilla incident

2010-06-02T04:37:00.000-07:00

Brilliant performance by Jonathon on English Al Jazeera. Note how his opponent in the debate Dr Gharda Karmi seeks to dismiss his arguments instead of actually addressing them. Well done Jonathon! Anyone wishing to discuss further can join in the comments section below.

Israel is not lost at sea.. Evidence shows their troops acted in self defence

2010-05-31T13:03:00.000-07:00

Israeli troops on the Mavi Marmara. The ship
was sent by the Islamist IHH organisation. More
on them below. Also watch the video on the BBC website I've
linked to and decide how 'peaceful' those protesters were?

An awful lot of hysterical bleating (from people like the Hamas loving Greens) is going on about the fiasco that unfolded this morning at sea, when Israeli troops boarded a ship carrying support for a genocidal terrorist movement; Hamas. What I will do is call for balance and clear thinking from all people concerned with the situation. Those people who support Hamas and that of course includes the militant left can go hang. This blog post is aimed at sensible people and hopefully along with the report by the BBC and BICOM we can at least form a balanced assessment of what actually happened.

What I will also say is this. You're a soldier or police officer facing a hostile crowd that outnumbers you and is attacking you with iron bars, knives and you think you hear shots. What do you do? Oh and in the time taken for you to read this a member of your team has been disarmed and shot by their own rifle. I'm a former soldier who has faced hostile crowds. I would open fire in those circumstances and so would any sensible professional. Unless you just want to watch your friends get bludgeoned to death and hope they grant you mercy when they turn on you? Full text from BICOM follows:

BICOM Briefing: Gaza Flotilla Incident
This brief provides currently available information on the Gaza flotilla incident. Updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

Key Points:

Israeli forces stormed a flotilla of activists' boats attempting to break the blockade of Gaza early this morning, resulting in at least 10 deaths among those on board.
Prior to the incident, Israel offered to transfer the aid carried by the protestors to the Gaza Strip via land borders under the activists' observation, after security checks. Whilst committed to facilitating the flow of aid to Gaza, Israel is concerned not allow the Gaza coast to become a corridor for weapons transfers to Hamas.
There has been an angry reaction in particular from Turkey, the Palestinians, and Israeli Arabs. International organizations are demanding explanations from Israel.
Israeli ministers have expressed "sorrow" at the deaths but stressed that the protestors acted violently to the Israeli forces including with live fire. Israel has also highlighted that IHH, the Turkish group involved in the flotilla, is believed to have a history of support for terrorism.
What happened?

Early on Monday 31 May, a flotilla of six activist's boats headed towards the Gaza coast.
They were met by vessels from the Israeli Navy about 60km from the coast, apparently in international waters. The Israeli navy warned them that that Gaza is under naval blockade. The Israeli navy invited the boats to enter the Ashdod port, north of Gaza. Israel offered to transfer the humanitarian aid to Gaza under the observation of the activists, according to Israeli authority regulations. The flotilla continued to try and reach the Gaza coast.
A team of Israeli commandos from the elite naval Shayetet 13 commando unit boarded the protest boats at around 4am from helicopters. It appears that five of the boats were captured without violence, but that on the largest, the Turkish flagged Marmara, Israel soldiers were met with planned, violent resistance, which Israeli officials described as attempts to lynch the soldiers.

The IDF says they were attacked with "live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs". Turkish television footage shows Israeli soldiers landing on the decks of the boats and immediately being set upon by men with sticks and planks. In the ensuing struggle at least ten, and possibly as many as nineteen, activists were killed and ten Israeli soldiers were harmed, four seriously. One soldier was stabbed and two were shot with firearms taken from the soldiers.
Who was on the protest boats and what was their aim?
Some 700 activists are reported to be on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, European legislators and British activists. The Marmara is reported to be carrying more than 500 people.
The organizations involved in the movement include the ‘Free Gaza Movement' alongside other European NGOs, and the Turkish Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH) movement.
The IHH has been accused of being a militant Islamist movement with a record of supporting terrorism. (For a report on IHH by the Danish Institute for International Studies click here.)
Speaking to BBC World News, a spokeswoman for the flotilla, Audrey Bomse stressed that the primary mission of the flotilla was to make a political statement with regard to the human rights of the Palestinian in Gaza and to "break the siege", as opposed to delivering the aid itself.
The groups involved refused requests from Israeli campaigners last week to deliver packages and letters to Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held captive by Hamas in the Gaza Strip without any external contact since 2006.

What is Israel's policy on access to the Gaza Strip?
Israel facilitates the daily passage of around one hundred trucks a day of aid to Gaza through its land border. There are no limits on the quantity of aid, but Israel restricts the types of goods it will allow in, because of the state of conflict that exists between Israel and the Hamas regime in Gaza.
Israel is concerned to avoid any action that will strengthen the Hamas government in Gaza, in the context of the divide between Hamas and the moderate Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. In contrast to Gaza, the West Bank has seen considerable improvement in movement and access in the last two years due to improved cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Israel insists that all aid entering Gaza be checked to ensure it does not include weaponry. It seeks to maintain the naval blockade in order to prevent the coast of Gaza becoming a corridor for the smuggling of arms to Hamas. Hamas has made considerable efforts to rearm and improve its arsenal with Iranian weapons smuggled under the Gaza-Egypt border.
Egypt, which considers Hamas to present a major threat to its own security, allows almost nothing to pass through its border with Gaza, but large quantities of goods enter the strip through tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border.
For more details see BICOM Briefing: Israeli policy on access to Gaza update - 27/5/2010.

What has been the reaction in Israel?
In a press conference, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak expressed his "sorrow" at the events, but stressed the responsibility lay with the organisers of the flotilla. He asserted that the Israeli forces involved were well trained, and acted only to defend themselves. He further emphasised that there was a well established procedure to send aid to Gaza and that it was unacceptable to allow the boats to reach Gaza without security checks, which would open up a precedent for a smuggling corridor.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said, "Israel regrets any loss of life and did everything it could to avoid this outcome," but stressed, that on the part of the protestors, "Their intent was violence, their methods were violence, and the outcome was violence."
Israeli Arab leaders and parliamentarians have reacted angrily, strongly condemning the Israeli actions, and there have been calls for protests among Israeli Arabs.
Israeli media commentators are raising questions about how this operation was planned and executed. Concerns are being expressed about the impact on Israel's international image and the possible reaction from Israeli Arabs and Palestinians.

What has been the international reaction?
Foreign Secretary William Hague said in statement, "I deplore the loss of life during the interception of theGaza Flotilla." He added, "We have consistently advised against attempting to access Gaza in this way, because of the risks involved. But at the same time, there is a clear need for Israel to act with restraint and in line with international obligations."
There has been a very angry reaction from the government of Turkey, the flag state of the largest ship, who have recalled their ambassador. The Turkish Prime Minister has returned early from an overseas trip. Protestors attempted to storm the Israeli consulate in Istanbul.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the incident as a "massacre" and has called for an emergency meeting of the Arab League.
European Foreign Affairs representative Baroness Ashton has called for an inquiry and for crossings into Gaza to be opened.
Robert Serry, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Filippo Grandi, Commissioner-General of the UN Relief and Works Agency have expressed shock in a statement and sought explanations from Israel.

What will happen now?
The situation at sea is still unclear and Israeli authorities report that the incident is still being brought under control.
Israel has said it will unload and check the aid at the Ashdod port and transfer the aid that is permitted to enter the Gaza Strip via the usual land crossings on the Israel-Gaza border. The protestors will be handled by Israeli immigration authorities.
Another boat of the ‘Free Gaza' movement is heading towards the Gaza Strip and activists have expressed determination to continue their efforts to break the blockade.

A Free Gaza Flotilla Mix - Watch this video folks and then decide how and why to support Human Rights in Gaza!

2010-05-24T15:16:00.000-07:00

My thoughts on the election result are encapsulated in this video...

2010-05-11T12:06:00.000-07:00

American Comedian Bill Maher on Culture and what should not be debateable in the West... Except it is..

2010-05-10T14:09:00.000-07:00

I think Green is a suitable font for this as I'm cross posting it from Ted Leddy's excellent blog Gubu World. Ted has posted a video clip featuring Bill Maher who gives his tuppence worth on the South Park fiasco. Maher articultes in his characteristicly punchy fashion the benefits of post-enlightenment western culture. Full text from Gubu World below(link):

One of the reasons I got turned off left wing politics was the inability or unwillingness of the left to recognise Militant political Islam as being a highly dangerous right wing philosophy that is utterly repugnant to western democratic values. This became so clear to me after spending one month in Iran conducting research on the democratisation movement in that country.

When I came back the idea of Blame Bush/Blair/Bertie for everything seemed completely hollow after seeing what the young people of Persia have to put up with. I began to feel that the blame the west for everything politics of the left is like a spoilt teenager being cheeky toward their parents because they know they can. Gradually I actually became quite appreciative of the virtues of western style liberal democracy and quite proud of the fact that I live in a free country. However I do get great satisfaction on the odd occasion that a lefty decides to put things in perspective and call it like it is. HBO's Bill Maher is probably the most left wing person on American TV. Still, the comedian has the good sense to make it clear that for all the failings of the catholic church and eccentricity of the christian right, they got nothing on the Taliban. He also stipulates that when it comes to conservative Muslims living in western democracies, there are some things that are non negotiable.

Listen to Jane Garvey (ex BBC) I bet it's not like that today at the BBC!

2010-05-07T04:30:00.000-07:00

Don't expect a scene like this at Broadcasting
House this time around!

Listen to Jane Garvey here, she is reminiscing about May 2nd 1997, bet it ain't like that today Labour are finished! Cue a minority Conservative government.

"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that"
Jane Garvey on BBC Five Live, May 10th 2007, recalling May 2nd 1997.

Democracy Declining - Israeli Deputy Ambassador attacked at Manchester University

2010-05-01T13:03:00.000-07:00

A further example of the thuggish alliance between militant leftists and political Islam? Perhaps but certainly an instance of politically inspired thuggery that has no place in a civilised democracy. Also a spineless attitude taken by the University itself. Take note this was not a peaceful protest and there have been numerous examples of similar incidents. Full text from JC below:

By Marcus Dysch, April 29, 2010

Israel’s deputy ambassador to Britain was forced to seek refuge in a security office after protesters attempted to attack her following a university lecture.
Talya Lador-Fresher said she feared she would be physically assaulted when demonstrators climbed on the bonnet of her car and attempted to smash the windscreen.

She had been speaking to members of Manchester University’s politics society when the incident occurred on Wednesday evening. Around 40 demonstrators had gathered at the venue.
Ms Lador-Fresher had been asked back to the university after a previous arrangement to address students in February was cancelled when more than 300 protesters from the Action Palestine student society scuffled with Jewish students and police.

Speaking about Wednesday’s protest she said: “It was quite a shocking experience. I have had people stand up and shout and wave the Palestinian flag when I have spoken, but it was the first time I have been in this situation.

“When we finished I could not get out of the university building. The demonstrators saw me on the way to the car and they started running towards me.
“The security team rushed me back into the building and we were standing in the corridor for a few minutes.”

The diminutive deputy ambassador was eventually escorted through a back door to a security vehicle but the demonstrators discovered the evacuation plan and surrounded the car.
Ms Lador-Fresher said: “They were screaming and shouting. Two of them were on the bonnet trying to break the windscreen. It was very unpleasant.

“I don’t think they wanted to kill me but I genuinely believed they wanted to physically hurt me. If I had not had the police and security team I would have been beaten up.”
Security guards eventually moved her to their nearby office for her own safety. She was later picked up by her Embassy driver.

Manchester University officials had been keen to re-arrange the lecture after its initial cancellation and had offered Ms Lador-Fresher an “open invitation”.
The deputy ambassador praised the efforts of University staff and Jewish students to ensure the event took place. She said despite the experience she would be happy to return to speak at Manchester again.

But she added: “No foreign diplomat should have to go through what I went through.”
Ambassador Ron Prosor said: "What is going on at British taxpayer-funded universities is shocking. Extremism is not just running through these places of education, it is galloping. My ears are ready and waiting to hear the strongest condemnation of this behaviour both from the heads of campus and the local authorities.”

A Manchester University spokesman said: “The University is fundamentally committed to freedom of speech, exercised within the law. It follows that it should also allow peaceful and lawful protest to take place on its campus.

“We took all reasonable action to put appropriate security measures in place for this meeting, including a complete lockdown of the building, a high-level security presence, ID checks at the door and ticket-only arrangements.”

Hitler and Gaga

2010-05-01T05:07:00.000-07:00

Fathi Hamad of Hamas, quite keen to 'sacrifice' the children of others...Only he was happy for Israel to airlift his daughter to hospital!

2010-04-26T10:00:00.000-07:00

Not so quick for his own kids to be sacrificed,
he relies on the IDF to airlift his sick daughter to hospital.

Many will be surprised at the nauseating hypocrisy of this individual. I am not. Fathi Hamad is on record here talking of how during Operation Cast Lead Hamas sacrificed the lives of their own women and children, using them as a screen to launch rockets at Israel. However this weekend he was quite happy for the IDF to airlift his own daughter to Jordan for emergency hospital treatment. Source is here for translation. Original from elderofzion here.

Quick Look at the Lib Dems Part 2 - Their intense cynicism, 'demonising Israel to win Muslim votes... Except in Hampstead'

2010-04-21T12:54:00.000-07:00

Jenny Tonge has condoned Suicide bombings.

She called for an investigation into claims that the IDF harvested organs from Haiti.
Yet she remains a Liberal Democrat and Clegg never withdrew the whip from this unpleasant
woman. I really wish what I am saying about her is untrue but she is a stain on the Lib Dems.

It's time again to look at the Lib Dems. They have a charismatic leader no doubt about that. However what about their policies? Foreign affairs for instance:

1. Take UK into the single currency.
2. Further integration into the EU (that trans-national body ruled by an unelected commission that has no audit budgets).
3. A potential shambles of an immigration policy, then again it is a shambles already.
4. I said earlier how scrapping Trident is not bereft of good sense. However it would cost the UK their place at the UN Security Council that is important. Clegg would quite possibly see Britain's place at the UNSC ceded to the EU?

However the worse thing about the Lib Dems? I mean all parties have some crazy ideas there are worse parties than them (Greens/BNP etc). Is their utterly cynical campaign against Israel to woo Muslim votes. I've cross posted this bit below from Chas Newkey Burden. Check out his philosemitic blog it's cool. Also the Lib Dems have the utterly vile Jenny Tonge amongst their ranks. An odious creature on a par with Nick Griffin of the BNP in terms of bigotry. Clegg could have sacked her he did not. Anyway see below for full text from Chas.

By: Chas Newkey-Burden

The Liberal Democrats at both national and local level have adopted an aggressive anti-Israel stance. They choose to communicate this message particularly in areas with large Muslim populations – suggesting that their anti-Israel stance is motivated by a desire to win Muslim votes.

During Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s effort to stop rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg came right out and said that “we must stop arming Israel” and even called for trade sanctions against Israel. This was echoed by the Lib Dems’ MP from Rochdale who branded Israeli actions a “massacre” and said to a rally in Trafalgar Square: “I am here on behalf of Nick Clegg to show solidarity for the people of Palestine….I want to stop the massacre [by Israel]”.

Jenny Tonge remains a member of the Lib Dems in the Lords, despite calling for an investigation into whether the IDF were harvesting body parts in Haiti – an outrageous and totally unsupported allegation. She was made a Lord by the Lib Dems after expressing sympathy with suicide bombers. She may well have finally lost her job as a Health Spokesperson, but surely the whip should be withdrawn and she should be expelled from Lib Dems entirely. It took years of anti-Semitic remarks for Tonge even to lose the Spokesperson job.

At a local level, the Lib Dems have ruthlessly targeted voters in Muslim areas with an anti-Israel message to whip up hatred against Israel and garner votes. Here is an example of a leaflet they used in an area of Redbridge with a large Muslim community – again calling for Israel to be disarmed and showing a photo of a dead child in Gaza. A similar Lib Dem leaflet was aimed at the Muslim community in the Kings Cross area of the Borough of Camden. Indeed, the Lib Dem Parliamentary candidate there, Jo Shaw, has made great play of her opposition to Israel, as shown by her website. The website post is totally unashamed about the fact the Lib Dems used the issue to recruit new Muslim members, saying: “The meeting was to welcome new Lib Dem members from Camden’s Bangladeshi community, who were heartened by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg being the only mainstream party leader to call for a halt to arm sales to Israel”.

Here in Hampstead & Kilburn, where I’m the Conservative parliamentary candidate and there is a large Jewish community, we don’t see any Lib Dem leaflets calling for Israel to be disarmed. Instead, the Lib Dems put out cheery leaflets targeted specifically at Jewish voters (somehow, they seem to have compiled a list of Jewish people in the area). The leaflets have Hebrew script, and imply friendship with Israel through photos of their candidate at the Western Wall and with members of the Knesset, accompanied by claims to “understand the community”.

What leaves me staggered is that these leaflets – with Hebrew lettering and targeted at Jewish voters – were produced by the Camden Lib Dems, the very same organisation who sent the leaflets to Muslim voters in Kings Cross calling for Israel to be disarmed. They may even have been printed on the same machine for all I know.
The double standards are truly breathtaking. I have stood up and said this publicly already. For the record, I’m a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. I spent a very happy summer in 1994 living and studying at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot. Israel, like any country, must have the right to ensure its security against terrorist attack.

What the Lib Dems have been doing to whip up hatred against Israel to win votes in a UK election is totally unacceptable, and pours fuel on the flames of racial and religious tension. I condemn it unequivocally.

A Quick Look at the Lib Dems Part One

2010-04-18T07:08:00.000-07:00

Doing Quite well at the moment but what of his
Policies?

The Lib Dems under Nick Clegg are doing quite well in the polls following Thursday night's debate. However why is this and how much focus is there on their policies? I've pasted below a quick excerpt from a recent FT article. The article critiques their economic policies and wonders what they would do in the case of a hung Parliament. Read below for the text from the FT or follow the above link. My points about the Lib Dems:

1. They should be called the Liberal Autocrats as they favour more 'integration' with the undemocratic trans-national EU.
2. Their immigration policy is a nonsense.
3. Scrapping Trident is not a bad idea, although it would cost the UK's position on the UN Security Council (that in itself is not a sensible reason for keeping Trident I know).
4. Scrap ID Cards, I'm 100% in favour of!
5. Their increase in capital gains tax will hurt business and investment.
6. Allowing people earning under 10k to avoid income tax is not a bad idea.
7. An amnesty for illegal immigrants would be fine if there was only a few thousand of them, but I fear the floodgates would open.
8. Their proposed public sector cuts do not go far enough.

I'll be back with more in a future post. The Lib Dems are a breath of fresh air for sure and the current success of Clegg could mean a change to the voting system if it translates into success at the polls. However what are they like when it comes to Foreign Policy and are they very cynical when it comes to that issue? See the next post for further details. FT below:

Tax
What have the Liberal Democrats announced? The Lib Dems would make the first £10,000 of earnings tax-free, putting £700 back into the pockets of millions of people on low and middle incomes. This rise in the tax thresholds, which would cost £17bn overall, would free 3.6m people on low incomes from having to pay any income tax at all.
The change would be paid for by cutting tax relief on pensions contributions, increasing capital gains tax, cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, reforming aviation taxation and introducing an annual 1 per cent mansion tax on property values above £2m.
What do the critics say? Opponents say the tax-raising measures would damage enterprise and investment and, in some cases, lack credibility, particularly the bid to save £4.65bn from extra anti-avoidance measures.
Although the tax rises would hit the wealthy, the design of the tax giveaway has come under fire from the left as it would disproportionately benefit households in the top half of the income spectrum. Many of the poorest have incomes too low to pay income tax and so would not gain.
FT verdict The idea behind these proposals – that the poorest taxpayers currently pay a bigger chunk of their income in tax than other groups – is muddled because it neglects the fact they get nearly all their income from the state. The Lib Dem proposals on capital gains tax would damage enterprise and investment. Recycling the proceeds into big tax cuts would be a mistake given the state of public finances.

Vanessa Houlder
Hung parliament
What have the Liberal Democrats announced? Nick Clegg says whichever party has the biggest mandate after the election in a hung parliament would have “the moral right” to try to form a government. His formula implies the Lib Dems would discuss a possible deal with the leader of the party with the biggest mandate in a hung parliament. But what does he mean when he talks about “the biggest mandate”? The Lib Dem leader was vague yesterday about whether he is talking about the party with the most seats or the most votes. If recent opinion polls were translated into a national swing on May 6, Labour could win the most seats while the Tories could win the most votes. Mr Clegg is giving himself room for manoeuvre.
What do the critics say? Mr Clegg should come clean on what he would do in a hung parliament. If he is privately willing to keep Mr Brown in power even if he lost his Commons majority, the voters have a right to know. On the other hand, many Lib Dem supporters would be horrified to think their votes would help to sustain a minority Tory administration: such a move could cause serious tensions.

FT verdict Mr Clegg would be willing to work with Labour or the Tories in exchange for delivery of key Lib Dem policies. But he would be more likely to sit on the opposition benches.

George Parker
Reforming the City
What have the Liberal Democrats announced? The Lib Dems want to rebalance the “unsustainable economy” by shrinking the size of the City and fostering a more diverse low-carbon economy. The big banks would be broken up so that there was a clear separation between retail banking and “high-risk investment banking”. A 10 per cent levy would be introduced on bank profits, which could not be offset against losses, raising about £2.2bn a year.
The party has pledged to crack down on “obscene greed”. This includes a ban on any board directors taking a bonus; a £2,500 cap on cash bonuses; tougher disclosure rules to name any banker earning more than the prime minister; and powers to levy a fine on any bank director over his company breaching pay rules.
What do the critics say? The measures are designed to pander to public anger rather than increase financial stability. A bank levy is backed by the Tories. But enforcing the measure without international agreement will penalise the City. The plan to split investment banks addresses the wrong problem, because most of the banks that failed were not hybrid super-banks. Finally, the crackdown on City pay will drive bankers out of London.
FT verdict An unsavoury mix of populism and seemingly easy fixes. The more serious proposals for splitting up big banks and imposing a levy on profits are flawed but deserve consideration, if done on a global basis. There is nothing liberal or sensible about a draconian clampdown on bonuses.

Alex Barker
The deficit
What have the Liberal Democrats announced? A series of “savings” to “start to reduce the deficit” from 2011 onwards. The Lib Dems claim their plans will cut government spending by about £15bn. A third of this will go towards new spending pledges, while £10bn will help to pay down the deficit.
Restrictions on benefits including ending Child Trust Funds, restricting tax credits, scaling back Regional Development Agency funding by £600m. Instead of a public sector pay freeze, the Lib Dems will place a £400 cap on pay rises. The third tranche of the Eurofighter will be scrapped along with ID cards.
What do the critics say? The plans to curb spending are over-optimistic, giving the impression of restraint without being honest about the pain. They also do not go far enough.
FT verdict Mr Clegg deserves credit for attempting to spell out cuts in detail. But they fail the test of being “honest” about the deficit and do not reflect the tough decisions facing the next government. Alex Barker

Another Story the BBC Missed, Johnson Beharry VC refused to shake Gordon Brown's hand

2010-04-06T07:18:00.001-07:00

I suppose I should not be surprised. That the BBC our state broadcaster, which I am legally obliged to fund has missed this story. Johnson Beharry a VC winner recently snubbed the PM at an official function. Why did the BBC ignore this story? Same reason they ignored this one. The answer lies in BBC bias by omission. Now who would be willing to say that if a US Serviceman who won say a Congressional Medal of Honour, yet went on to snub George Bush jnr that the BBC would ignore that story. Of course not for one thing they would find that a more comfortable subject matter to deal with. That is because that admittedly hypothetical scenario would fit into a anti-Bush/US meme. The BBC does not want to embarrass Gordy our PM.

Just in case you missed it, here's the YouTube Video concerning Desmond Travers..

2010-04-06T05:33:00.000-07:00

I wonder who got the original removed from YouTube and why? Still fortunately I have a copy and so it can remain on here. I have added it as it contributes to my discussion with Colm below Oh yes and there's an election by the way...

A Quick Portrayal of a Modern Hypocrite and Fool..Colonel Desmond Travers IDF

2010-03-11T03:13:00.000-08:00

Desmond here was part of an
investigation team that descended
into the production of propaganda

This is a quick article as I need to gear up for covering the pending election. Not that the election will change a single thing in Britain anyway. British Colonels and occasionally American ones have been occasionally portrayed in the media as blimp like figures. Often this is done for amusement. However that accolade now must surely belong to Desmond Travers of the IDF. No not that IDF this IDF the Irish Forces. So who is Desmond Travers? Well he is a former Senior Officer of the IDF and was one of the panelists that produced the Goldstone report for the UN. That is the report which accused both Hamas and Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. The Goldstone report is widely used to criticise Israel. In fact it has some authority in many people's eyes as it was produced by a UN body. Even though the body itself is a complete turkey which appointed Sudan as a member on May 4th 2004! Previous members have included Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Cuba. You probably get the point. That was the esteemed body for which Travers worked.

So my concerns for Travers are? Well quite simply the man is not equal to the task of performing an investigation into human rights violations. He has serious baggage, it was his intent from the start to use the report as a means of attacking Israel. This man should not be trusted to run a bath let alone mount an investigation. Read the following report in the Jerusalem Post by Alan Dershowitz. The Goldstone report was never meant to be impartial. In fact it could not possibly have been. Travers would have seen to that himself. He wanted to use the report to attack Israel. Travers has also unsurprisingly made paranoid and anti-Semitic remarks about a 'Jewish lobby'. For proof of that and a video of the man displaying his limited grasp of debating skills look at this piece by my friend Chas Newkey-Burden. Note how Travers evades the question. Also his completely contradicts himself saying that remarks about mosques storing munitions, can only be made if supported by forensic evidence. He states assuredly that no mosque did store munitions in Gaza, yet he he conducted no forensic investigation himself. He then theorises that munitions would not ever be stored in a place of worship, as his ancestors had been insurgents during the Irish war of independence. His ancestors had not done so between 1919- 1921 so therefore Hamas would never do so in 2009! What fatuous nonsense! The video is below:

Desmond Travers is a hypocrite, a political actor and not an investigator and an utterly disingenuous fool. You don't like me calling you that Des? Tough plenty of other people are and you can always sue me. Only I'll use your own words as evidence for this claim.

Full text on Travers in the Jerusalem Post below:

When Irish Colonel Desmond Travers eagerly accepted an appointment to the Goldstone Commission, he was hell-bent on revenge against Israel based on paranoid fantasies and hard left anti-Israel propaganda. He actually believed, as he put it in a recent interview, that "so many Irish soldiers had been killed by Israelis," with "a significant number who were taken out deliberately and shot (in southern Lebanon.)" This is of course complete and utter fantasy, but it was obviously part of Col. Travers' bigoted reality.

Travers came to the job having already made up his mind not to believe anything Israel said and to accept everything Hamas put forward. For example, Israel produced hard photographic evidence that Gaza mosques were used to store rockets and other weapons. Other photographs, taken by journalists, also proved what everybody now acknowledges to be true: namely that Hamas, as its leaders frequently boasted, routinely use mosques as military munitions depots. When confronted with this evidence, Travers said, "I don't believe the photographs." Of course not; they don't comport with his politically correct and ideologically skewed world-view. This is what he had previously said about why he didn't believe that Hamas used the mosques to store weapons:

We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. ...If I were a Hamas operative the last place I'd store munitions would be in a mosque. It's not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a [sic] many better places to store munitions."

But that is exactly what Hamas did, despite Travers' insistence on paraphrasing Groucho Marx's famous quip, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Most disturbing, however, was Travers' categorical rejection of Israel's claim that it attacked Gaza only after enduring thousands of anti-personnel rockets intended to target Israeli civilians, mainly schoolchildren. In fact, Hamas rockets hit several schools, though fortunately the teachers had dismissed the students just before the rockets would have killed dozens, perhaps hundreds, of them.

This is what Travers said about Hamas rockets:

...the number of rockets that had been fired into Israel in the month preceding their operations was something like two. The Hamas rockets had ceased being fired into Israel and not only that but Hamas sought a continuation of the cease-fire. Two had been fired from Gaza, but they are likely to have been fired by dissident groups, [i.e. groups that were violating a Hamas order not to fire rockets]." (emphasis added).

Again, Travers' rendition defies the historical record and tells us more about Travers than it does about what actually provoked Israel into finally taking action to protect some million civilians in range of Hamas' rockets. In fact Israel complied with the cease-fire, under the terms of which Israel reserved the right to engage in self-defense actions such as attacking terrorists who were in the process of firing rockets at its civilians.

Just before the hostilities began, Israel offered Hamas both a carrot and a stick: it reopened a checkpoint to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. It had closed the point of entry after the checkpoint was targeted by Gazan rockets. Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, also issued a stern, final warning to Hamas that unless it stopped the rockets, there would be a full-scale military response.

This is the way Reuters reported it:

Israel reopened border crossings with the Gaza Strip on Friday, a day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned militants there to stop firing rockets or they would pay a heavy price. Despite the movement of relief supplies, militants fired about a dozen rockets and mortar shafts from Gaza at Israel on Friday. One accidentally struck a house in Gaza, killing two Palestinian sisters, ages 5 and 13." (emphasis added)

Despite the opening of the crossings, the Hamas rockets continued - not none, not "something like two," but many - and Israel kept its word, implementing a targeted air attack against Hamas facilities and combatants.

Not surprisingly, Travers said that he "rejected ... entirely" Israel's claim that its "attack on Gaza was based on self-defense." Instead, he compared Israel's attack on Hamas to the unprovoked Nazi bombing of "Guirnica."

Travers has repeatedly claimed that "no substantive critique of the [Goldstone] report has been received." This is an out-and-out lie. I have read dozens of substantive critiques, and have written a 49-page one myself. The truth is that Travers has studiously ignored and refused to respond to these critiques. And of course he blames everything on "Jewish lobbyists."

Nor was Travers the only member of the commission with predetermined views and an anti-Israel agenda. Christine Chinken had already declared Israel guilty of war crimes before seeing any evidence. Hina Jilani had also condemned Israel before her appointment to the group, and then said that it would be "very cruel to not give credence to [the] voices" of the victims, apparently without regard to whether they were telling the truth. And then there is Richard Goldstone, who told friends that he too took the job with an agenda, which he says was to help Israel! Why any reasonable person would pay any attention to a report written by four people who had prejudged the evidence and came to their jobs with agendas and biases is beyond comprehension.

No reporting from Afghanistan during the election.

2010-03-08T01:48:00.000-08:00

Expect to see less of this during the election.
Even though reporting during the 1945 election
was never suspended.

Reporters are facing a 'gag' on reporting from Afghanistan in the run up to the election. Is anyone surprised? I guess not but at least Gordy managed to get his own piece of electioneering from Afghanistan done last week. That is of course before the ban will come into effect. A further example of powerful, corrupt government suiting it's own ends. Never mind the troops, I wonder if the next of kin of any casualties that occur during the period of this gag will have to wait for news. I mean will the MOD wait until after the election and then tell the families their loved ones have died, days or weeks later. It would certainly be expedient for this government to do so and in keeping with the spirit of this unnecessary restriction on press freedom.

In the words of Colonel Douglas Young Chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation:

“It didn’t happen in 1945 - there was no question of limiting reporting at that time simply because an election was happening and I don’t see why there should be any questions of that now. Are we to stop operations during this period? Obviously not, and if operations are in process they should be reported upon in the normal way.

“It is ridiculous to expect the forces to be hiding away just because there’s a general election.”

New Product aimed at deterring Predatory Clergy proves to be a success!

2010-02-11T09:30:00.000-08:00

An altar boy protected by Priest Off

This is a funny video that is advertising 'Priest off'. After all of the troubles caused by pedophiles in the Church. A new product on the market now means such worries are over. Hat tip to Mick Hall for this. Even though I disagree with him on many things cannot fault his humour. See Video below.

Wilders on trial for telling the truth? He should not be on trial at all..

2010-01-28T15:10:00.000-08:00

“You have enemies? Good.That means you’ve stood up for something,sometime in your life:”
Winston Churchill

Geert Wilders is on trial currently in the Netherlands. The charges against him are completely Orwellian to say the least. It's simple really you do not have to agree with everything Wilders says to see this trial for what it is. A political show trial by an elite ruling class that wishes to decide what Dutch people can and do say (and therefore think) for them. It is a travesty for democracy. Wilders may be a poor choice of martyr for some. But martyr he will become and the likelihood is this trial will boost his already soaring ratings. Personally I hope so, I think what he said in Fitna was nothing. He merely directly quoted the words and actions of others. Those others being Islamic jihadists. Either way read the blog piece by Douglas Murray for a good take on this politicised show trial. Murray is spot on. Quick note from a Libertarian, KEEP POLITICS OUT OF THE COURT ROOM. Full text from Murray below:

There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.

The trial of Geert Wilders has garnered hardly any attention in the mainstream press here. Fortunately the blogosphere can correct some of this.

Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.

His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.

Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.

Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.

If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.

Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.

I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again. And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.

Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.

Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.

There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.

Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran. Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon! There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.

The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.

Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer.

Excellent Investigative Report by the Guardian on Peter Moore's Kidnapping

2009-12-31T09:29:00.000-08:00

This is a superb report here . Peter Moore has now been released from captivity in Iraq/Iran? The Guardian are reporting that he was held in Iran which is entirely plausible given the Iranian government's long history of holding hostages. Sadly Peter's four security guards were murdered during their captivity. Anyway watch the Guardian report it is excellent and very plausible. We know the Iranian government likes to kidnap Britons, it may also have murdered them. I would like to wish Peter and all readers a happy New Year. My sincerest condolences for the families of his four colleagues from GardaWorld. Also I would like to express my admiration for the two Iraqi intelligence personnel mentioned in the film. Those guys ran incredible risks and are a credit to their emerging nation. Even if this tale overall is a sad indictment as to how Iran's thuggish theocracy can subvert an emerging democracy. Overall all the best to Peter Moore and may he have a speedy recovery.

Final Hours for Brit on Death Row in China

2009-12-28T12:26:00.000-08:00

Time may be running out for Akmal Shaikh a Briton convicted of drug smuggling in China. Indeed by the time many of you read this he may already have been executed. I have mixed views on the death penalty. That may seem strange to some and I accept it is. But all my experiences have taught me that all governments kill to some extent or another. As such I can see perhaps cynically the argument for a just authority passing the death penalty after an individual has been tried by a jury of his peers. I mean every day western governments kill in Afghanistan and the UK government hypocritically supports that whilst being against capital punishment. That said I certainly support the calls for Shaikh to be granted clemency. I can never condone the use of capital punishment against drug smugglers. Had Shaikh received a fair trial and been convicted of murder perhaps I would think differently but I'm not decided on capital punishment per se. However I really do not want the Chinese government to kill this man.

Historian Andrew Roberts 'An Inconvenient Truth'- The History of Anglo-Israeli Relations.

2009-12-10T09:14:00.000-08:00

Here is the full text of a speech given by historian Andrew Roberts at the annual dinner of the Anglo Israeli Association. Their annual dinner was held last night the 9th December. I have posted this from Melanie Phillip's column in the Spectator. One possible explanation for the Foreign Office's historic attitude could be that reflected in my last post about the PSC's John Sullivan. Simply put many Brits don't like Jews.

You know one way you can test the British people's attitude to Jews? Simply type Stacey Solomon (X factor singer) into Google. The list with the most hits populated by Google as you finish typing reads 'Stacey Solomon Jewish'. Funny ain't it that I don't get anything similar with any other X factor contestant? Read some of the comments about Stacey, most are complimentary the horrid ones though not infrequently come back to one thing. I'll leave that to my readers to find out. Back on topic Andrew Roberts Speech below:

'My Lords, Ladies & Gentlemen,
It’s a great honour to be invited to address you, especially on this the 60th anniversary of AIA, and I’d like to take the opportunity of this anniversary to look at the overall story of the relationship between Britain and Israel, and to try to strip away some of the myths.

Because it seems to me that for all the undoubted statesmanship implicit in Arthur Balfour’s Declaration of November 1917, promising ‘a National Home for the Jewish People’, it doesn’t mean that Britain has ever been much more than a fair-weather friend to Jewish national aspirations. The Declaration itself was at least in part conceived to keep Eastern European and Russian Jews supporting the Great War after the Bolshevik Revolution, and Chaim Weizmann’s preferred wording of ‘a Jewish State’ was turned down by the British Foreign Office. As David Ben-Gurion wrote at the time: ‘Britain has made a magnificent gesture … But only the Hebrew people can transform this right into tangible fact: only they, with body and soul, with their strength and capital, must build their National Home and bring about their national redemption.’

Sure enough, at the Versailles Conference and its ancillary meetings up to 1922, although Britain was given the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the Jewish National Home was not established. During the Mandate period there was an observable tension between the CO, which was responsible for administering Palestine and wanted to do so within the terms of the (admittedly self-contradictory) Balfour Declaration, and the FO, which feared that allowing the de facto creation of a Jewish State would alienate Arabs. In 1937 the Peel Commission recommended ending the Mandate and partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, with population transfers of 225,000 Arabs from Galilee, an outcome Ben-Gurion said [quote] ‘could give us something which we have never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples’. Nonetheless, both the Arabs and the 20th Zionist Congress rejected Peel’s recommendations, to the palpable relief of the Foreign Office, which concentrated its own opposition to it on the basis of its supposed impracticality.

Instead there was the notorious 1939 White Paper, which severely limited Jewish immigration into Palestine at precisely the period of their greatest need, during the Final Solution. A total upper limit of 75,000 Jewish immigrants was set for the fateful years 1940-44, a figure that was also intended to cover refugee emergencies. The White Paper was published on 9 November 1938 – the very same day as the Kristallnacht atrocities in Germany – and was approved by Parliament in May 1939, a full two months after Hitler’s occupation of the rump of Czechoslovakia. The Manchester Guardian described it as ‘a death sentence on tens of thousands of Central European Jews’, which in sheer numerical terms was probably an underestimation. Although the Labour Party Conference voted to repeal the White Paper in 1945, the Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin – a bitter enemy of Israel - persisted in it, and it was not to be repealed until the day after the State of Israel was proclaimed.

In late April 1948, Bevin ordered that Arab positions in Jaffa needed to be protected from the Jews [quote] ‘at all costs’, and when Israeli independence came the next month, the departing British sometimes handed over vital military and strategic strongpoints to the five invading Arab armies, the most efficient of which, Transjordan’s Arab Legion, was actually commanded by a Briton, Sir John Glubb. And then on New Year’s Eve 1948 the British Government actually issued an ultimatum to Israel threatening war if Israel did not halt its counter-attacks on Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip and Sinai. Britain was the only country in the UN that came to Egypt’s aid in this regard.

One can easily see, therefore, why when Brig-Gen Sir Wyndham Deedes set up the Anglo-Israeli Association only weeks after Israel was finally recognized by Britain in 1949 - months after America, Russia and several other states had already done so – it was much-needed. There was still massive resentment over the War of Independence; Israel was considered at best a headache by the FO; and worst of all, unlike her neighbours, she had no oil. Nor did the Suez Crisis much help matters seven years later: the way in which Israel fitted in neatly with British plans to crush Nasser ought to have endeared her to the Foreign Office, but of course it didn’t.
When in May 1967 Nasser announced the blockading of the Straits of Tiran, closing Israel’s commercial lifeline to the east, the guarantors of this international waterway – including Britain – failed to act quickly or decisively, and although Harold Wilson was proud of his pro-Israeli sentiments, his foreign secretary George Brown and the FO certainly did not reciprocate them. Britain compounded its generally lukewarm attitude during the Six Day War by sponsoring Resolution 242 at the end of it, which called on Israel to withdraw [quote] ‘from territories occupied’, in a resolution that was so badly worded by the FO that Arabs and Israelis have been able to argue over its proper meaning ever since.

The Yom Kippur War of October 1973 saw even worse bias by the FO in favour of the Arabs and against the Jews. Announcing an arms embargo ‘equally’ between the belligerents, the Heath Government effectively stopped Israel buying spare parts for the IDF’s Centurion tanks, whilst allowing them to be bought by Jordan, the only other country affected, because it was not (officially at least) a belligerent. Egyptian helicopter pilots continued to be trained in Britain, with the foreign secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home lamely telling the Israeli Ambassador that it was better for the pilots to be training in Britain than fighting at the front. Heath even refused to allow American cargo planes taking supplies to Israel to land and refuel at our bases on Cyprus.

In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher seemed to offer a new warmth to Anglo-Israeli relations. She sat for Finchley, her Methodism chimed well with Jewish values, and she was the most philo-Semitic PM since Churchill, yet even she was stymied by the FO, especially over Intelligence cooperation with Mossad. It’s true that John Major sent a special SAS unit to seek and destroy Iraqi Scud missile batteries targeting Israel during the First Gulf War, but that was largely to remove the danger of Israel retaliating, and thereby perhaps destroying the Arab coalition against Saddam.
After 9/11 Tony Blair seemed to appreciate how Israel was in the very front line in the War against Terror, and he thus bravely refused to condemn Israel’s acts of self-defence in Lebanon, but since then Britain’s contribution to the EU’s strand of negotiating over Iran’s nuclear ambitions has been, frankly, pathetic.
One area of policy over which the FO has traditionally held great sway is in the question of Royal Visits.

It is not therefore coincidence that although HMQ has made over 250 official overseas visits to 129 different countries during her reign, neither she nor one single member of the British royal family has ever been to Israel on an official visit. Even though Prince Philip’s mother, Princess Alice of Greece, who was recognized as "Righteous Among the Nations" for sheltering a Jewish family in her Athens home during the Holocaust, was buried on the Mount of Olives, the Duke of Edinburgh was not allowed by the FO to visit her grave until 1994, and then only on a private visit.

"Official visits are organized and taken on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth office," a press officer for the royal family explained when Prince Edward visited Israel recently privately - and a spokesman for the Foreign Office replied that [quote] ‘Israel is not unique" in not having received an official royal visit, because [quote] ‘Many countries have not had an official visit.’

That might be true for Burkino Faso and Chad, but the FO has somehow managed to find the time over the years to send the Queen on State visits to Libya, Iran, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan & Turkey. So it can’t have been that she wasn’t in the area.
Perhaps Her Majesty hasn’t been on the throne long enough, at 57 years, for the Foreign Office to get round to allowing her to visit one of the only democracies in the Middle East. At least she could be certain of a warm welcome in Israel, unlike in Morocco where she was kept waiting by the King for three hours in 90 degree heat, or at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda the time before last, where they hadn’t even finished building her hotel.
The true reason of course, is that the Foreign Office has a ban on official Royal visits to Israel, which is even more powerful for its being unwritten and unacknowledged. As an act of delegitimisation of Israel, this effective boycott is quite as serious as other similar acts, such as the academic boycott, and is the direct fault of the FO Arabists.

Which brings us on to Mr Oliver Miles. One of the reasons I’m proud to be an historian is that there are scholars of the integrity and erudition of Prof Sir Martin Gilbert and Prof Sir Lawrence Freedman who also write history. If people as intelligent, wise and incorruptible as they choose to be historians, then it must be an honourable profession. Let me quote to you, therefore, word-for-word, what a former British Ambassador to Libya and Greece, Mr Oliver Miles, wrote in The Independent newspaper less than a fortnight ago, commenting on the composition of the present Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War:
‘Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media. … All five members have outstanding reputations and records, but it is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.’

Ladies and gentlemen, if that’s the way that FO Arabists are prepared to express themselves in public, can you imagine the way that they refer to such people as Professors Gilbert and Freedman in private? For the balance that Mr Miles is talking about here is clearly a racial balance, that only a certain quota of Jews should have been allowed on to the Inquiry.
Of course there’s a reason why ‘Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream media’, of course, and that is because it is a disgraceful and disgusting concept even to notice the racial background of such distinguished public servants, and one that wouldn’t have even occurred to most people had not Mr Miles made such a point of it.

Because there are 22 ambassadors to Arab countries, and only one to Israel, it is perhaps natural that the FO should tend to be more pro-Arab than pro-Israeli. On occasion there are remarkably good British Ambassadors to Israel – your president, Sir Andrew Burns, was one such in the early 1990s – just as there are on occasion remarkably good Israeli Ambassadors to Britain, indeed we are fortunate to have one at the Embassy today in Ron Prosor. Overall, however, such men are swimming against the tide of an FO assumption that Britain’s relations with Israel ought constantly to be subordinated to her relations with other Middle Eastern states, especially the oil-rich ones, however badly those states behave in terms of human rights abuses, the persecution of Christians, the oppression of women, medieval practices of punishment, and so on.

It seems to me that there is an implicit racism going on here. Jews are expected to behave better, goes the FO thinking, because they are like us. Arabs must not be chastised because they are not. So in warfare, we constantly expect Israel to behave far better than her neighbours, and chastise her quite hypocritically when occasionally under the exigencies of national struggle, she cannot. The problem crosses political parties today, just as it always has. William Hague called for Israel to adopt a proportionate response in its struggle with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2007, as though proportionate responses ever won any victories against fascists. In the Second World War, the Luftwaffe killed 50,000 Britons in the Blitz, and the Allied response was to kill 600,000 Germans – twelve times the number and hardly a proportionate response, but one that contributed mightily to victory. Who are we therefore to lecture the Israelis on how proportionate their responses should be?
Very often in Britain, especially when faced with the overwhelmingly anti-Israeli bias that is endemic in our liberal media and the BBC, we fail to ask ourselves what we would not do placed in the same position?

The population of the United Kingdom of 63 millions is nine times that of Israel. In July 2006, to take one example entirely at random, Hezbollah crossed the border of Lebanon into Israel and killed 8 patrolmen and kidnapped 2 others, and that summer fired 4,000 Katyusha rockets into Israel which killed a further 43 civilians. Now, if we multiply those numbers by nine to get the British equivalent, just imagine what we would not do if a terrorist organization based as close as Calais were to fire 36,000 rockets into Sussex and Kent, killing 387 British civilians, after killing 72 British servicemen in an ambush and capturing a further eighteen? I put it to you that there is absolutely no lengths to which our Government would not go to protect British subjects under those circumstances, and quite right too. So why should Israel be expected to behave any differently?

There has hardly been a single year since Brigadier-General Deedes established AIA in 1949 when a speaker has not been able to say that Israel faced a crisis, and on some occasions – in 1956, 1967, 1973 and especially in the face of the present Iranian nuclear programme today – these were existential. At a time when Barrack Obama appears to be least pro-Israeli president since Eisenhower, the dangers are even more obvious. For there is simply no way that Obama will prevent Ahmadinejad, perhaps Jewry’s most viciously outspoken and dangerous foe since the death of Adolf Hitler, to acquire a nuclear Bomb.

None of us can pretend to know what lies ahead for Israel, but if she decides pre-emptively to strike against such a threat – in the same way that Nelson pre-emptively sank the Danish Fleet at Copenhagen and Churchill pre-emptively sank the Vichy Fleet at Oran – then she can expect nothing but condemnation from the British Foreign Office. She should ignore such criticism, because for all the fine work done by this Association over the past six decades - work that’s clearly needed as much now as ever before – Britain has only ever really been at best a fair-weather friend to Israel.

Although History does not repeat itself, it’s cadences do occasionally rhyme, and if the witness of History is testament to anything it is testament to this:
That in her hopes of averting the threat of a Second Holocaust, only Israel can be relied upon to act decisively in the best interests of the Jews.'

Anti-Semite from the PSC, another example of Britain's growing Anti-Semitism

2009-12-03T09:01:00.001-08:00

A sad example of what is growing in Britain today. Anti-Semitism. Listen to what this idiot member of the PSC has to say about Jews in Britain. The PSC held a ‘Christmas Carol Service’ on 01 December at Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church on Tuesday December 1st, starting at 6pm.

The carol concert featured Caryl Churchill, author of the anti-Semitic play Seven Jewish Children, which demonises Israel and suggests that Israeli parents teach their children to hate Arabs. The leader of the Church, Vicar Simon Perry disgracefully buys into the PSCs propaganda as can be seen he also features in this video. A demonstration was held at the Church by Israel supporters. The man John Sullivan and others from the PSC can be plainly seen along with their views. A typical example, of the alliance that exists between leftists and Islamists. I gave further examples of this dangerous alliance and the resulting anti-Semitism here:

http://amodernlibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/01/rally-for-hate-and-were-are-not-all.html

If You're a Former Serviceman or Servicewoman express your displeasure at the BNP here...

2009-10-22T09:30:00.000-07:00

This is a superb website here. The BNP are seeking to hijack the good name of the British Forces. Numerous veterans and others are speaking out about this on the 'nothing British'website which I have linked to above. The BNP are on Question Time tonight on BBC 1, whatever you think of that I bet it will send Question time's ratings through the roof! I have little to say on the BNP. I don't like them, I consider them to have gained in popularity due in large part to NuLabour and EU policies but that is for another time. I'm heartened to note that the overwhelming majority of servicemen and veterans are opposed to them. For evidence of that look here. The BNP are racial supremacists and unless we make the Army like the Waffen SS we're going against history. For one thing if the Army was to follow BNP like policies and only allow 'white native Britons' to join, we would have missed out on some star recruits such as Talaiasi Labalaba (pictured),Johnson Beharry and of course the Gurkhas. More on Labalaba here. There is an ongoing campaign to get Labalaba's MID upgraded retrospectively to a VC. He only recieved a MID (mention in dispatches) in 1973 due to an official desire to keep the battle he fought in secret. I would like to quickly take this opportunity to wish all serving Gurkhas and others from the Commonwealth in HM Forces all the best. Your bravery is the best possible riposte to the BNP.

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

2009-10-11T00:20:00.000-07:00

The science is contradictory.

Interesting article from the BBC. I am one of those unusual people whose mind is not made up as to whether climate change is man made or not. This article whilst it is obviously not detailed enough to argue either case, does lay out each point of view. Good article and full text below:

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly. Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature. And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees. He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures. He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month. If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores. In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years. So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling." So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature. But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models. In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years. Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers. But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself. So what can we expect in the next few years? Both sides have very different forecasts.
The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998). Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely. One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

Putin almost says sorry

2009-09-01T12:29:00.000-07:00

Wielun, where the Luftwaffe 70 years ago

killed 1000 civilians in a portent

of what was to come.

Good article in the Times about the commemorations in Poland today marking the outbreak of the second world war. Well the commemoration is today if you're Polish, Friday if you're British or French. Americans can wait until December 2011. However if you're Chinese your seventieth commemorations should have started on September 18 2001. Anyway back to the Times, it seems in a relativist sort of way Putin has come close to apologising for the Soviet treatment of Poland and in particular the Soviet/Nazi pact of 1939 that set the stage for world war two. It's hardly surprising the Poles are not too keen on Vladimir's obfuscations. Whilst it has to be borne in mind that the Soviet Union was overwhelmingly responsible for the Nazi defeat, for those areas liberated by the USSR in '45 all it meant was Soviet and not Nazi tyranny. Still I shall not go on, I would just like to express my sympathies for all those who suffered as a consequence of this conflict. Also my admiration for those who fought to defeat Nazi terror.

PM requested bomber 'sensitivity' - Thanks for that Gordy!

2009-08-21T09:15:00.000-07:00

This from the BBC is a complete non-story. As we are all aware Megrahi has been released to jubilant scenes in Libya, his homeland. Fortunately the BBC are now telling us that PM Brown requested of the Libyans that they show 'sensitivity' upon Megrahi's return. Well assuming that's true thanks PM well done! Now will you actually tell us what you think about this decision to release Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber? Also will there be an inquiry to establish exactly what happened to Pan Am 103? Who was responsible and which terror supporting regime orchestrated this attack? I ask because almost 21 years later people do still not know the full story. Sadly I fear the truth will die with Megrahi. This is a unsatisfying end to a sad and sordid story. Full text below.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown had asked Libya to "act with sensitivity" in its welcome for the returning Lockerbie bomber, it has emerged. He sent a letter to Colonel Gaddafi ahead of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's release from Greenock Prison. Crowds in Tripoli, some waving Saltire flags, greeted the Libyan after he was freed on compassionate grounds.

Mr Brown has been urged by Tory leader David Cameron to make clear his view of the decision to release Megrahi. Downing Street confirmed the prime minister had asked Libya to show restraint on the return of the man convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 atrocity. The celebratory welcome was subsequently described as "deeply distressing" by Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

It is curious that while others have commented, Britain's own prime minister has not said
David CameronConservative leader. Mr Brown has now been asked by Mr Cameron to state his opinion of the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. The Conservative leader has already said he believes Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was wrong to free the Libyan. In a letter to Mr Brown, he said the fact that the Scottish Government made the decision did not preclude the prime minister from making a comment.

He wrote: "It is curious that, while others have commented, Britain's own prime minister has not. "I hope you will now take the opportunity to do so. Above all, I believe the public are entitled to know what you think of the decision to release Megrahi, and whether you consider it was right or wrong."
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond said that the decision had been made "for the right reasons". The scenes which greeted the Lockerbie bomber's return have been widely criticised.
US President Barack Obama described the release as a "mistake" and said his administration had urged Libya not to give Megrahi a hero's welcome.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond also said the reception was "inappropriate".
Dumfries Labour MP Russell Brown and Dumfriesshire Conservative MP David Mundell described the scenes as "stomach turning" and "sickening". It has also emerged that a visit to Libya by the Duke of York is being reconsidered following the welcome reserved for Megrahi. The Duke's spokesman said a trip to Libya in early September had been "in its planning stages". Terminal cancer He added: "We will continue to take advice from the Foreign Office as we do with all overseas royal visits."

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said she was unable to confirm the visit would be cancelled because an official invitation to the British Government from Libya had not yet been received.
However, it is believed the visit by the Duke, who is understood to have made several trips to Libya in recent years, is unlikely to go ahead. Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, was released from jail on Thursday on compassionate grounds and flew back to Libya.

He was convicted in 2001 of carrying out the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people were killed.
He dropped his appeal against conviction earlier this week. Scottish prosecutors at the Crown Office have now confirmed they have also dropped an appeal against his "unduly lenient" sentence.

Bonkers!- Avon and Somerset Police make Non-Muslim Female Officers were Hijab when Visiting Mosques.

2009-07-28T02:03:00.000-07:00

All smiles at the Avon and Somerset
Police Madrassa sorry HQ

I really cannot comprehend this idea at all. It must have come straight out of left field, that left field being of course political correctness and amoral feeble leadership. I'll say this quickly in a secular democracy, secular law takes precedent over religious law and customs. It's actually a good idea by the way that was what the enlightenment was all about. I doubt however anyone in Avon and Somerset Police's management realise that of course, they're too busy with 'cultural relativity' or some similar way of eroding their own responsibilities. This panders to Islamic supremacism, i.e Non-Muslim laws and customs must make way for Sharia. According to the BBC 'The force says the move will help its officers respect Muslim religious customs while carrying out their job.' Great now are they going to respect other 'Muslim religious customs' as well such as child marriage or honour killings?

Muslims welcome police scarf move

The head scarves are designed to match the force's uniform
Avon and Somerset Police is issuing head coverings to its female officers so they can enter mosques. The force says the move will help its officers respect Muslim religious customs while carrying out their job. The garments, designed to match the force's uniform, were designed in consultation with Muslim groups. Imam Rashad Azami, of Bath, said: "This will go a long way in encouraging a trustful relationship between the police and the Muslim community."

Mr Azami, director of Bath Islamic Society, said: "The police have been working closely with the Muslim community in the area on many levels for the last few years."
There are two versions of the head coverings, to match the black of a police officer's uniform and the blue of the Police Community Support Officer uniforms. Both carry the force's crest.

PM appears to say 'We have enough helicopters in Afghanistan'- Why then Gordy are more being sent?

2009-07-23T09:12:00.000-07:00

Whilst the debate rages on, he soldiers on...

One thing I regret about this blog is that I have not blogged enough about defence and the overseas operations being carried out supposedly to that end. However I cannot ignore the current morass in Afghanistan. Read the Telegraph article if only for the comments below it. What annoys me though is the continued double speak by our ruling politicians. Examples include saying 'we could send more helicopters'. Anyone get that I don't? Could or should? I mean we could send a P&O cross channel ferry for that matter. However we do need them. I don't believe that Afghanistan is a lost cause, however a lack of aerial mobility will render our troops very vulnerable. I can be convinced that defeating or at least containing the Taleban insurgency is best for the region. If only to prop up up the governments in Kabul and Islamabad. Besides if the Taleban emerge victorious a huge price will be paid for all. That said I wish both the UK and US governments had realised that much sooner. I'll conclude by copying the superb comment by 'JL' in the Telegraph:

'15 July: General Dannatt - we need more helicopters.

16 July: Brown - no you don't.

17 July: Jock Stirrup - we need more helicopters.

19 July: John Hutton - they need more helicopters.

20 July: Mandelson - no they don't.

21 July: Malloch-Brown - they need more helicopters.

22 July: Brown - no they don't.

22 July: Malloch-Brown - they have enough.

23 July: Rammell - we may send more helicopters......Meanwhile yet another soldier dies in Helmand.This has gone beyond farce. If we have to fight this war then fund and equip it properly. Otherwise get out.'

I could not agree more.

More men and helicopters 'could be sent to Afghanistan'- The Telegraph

Hundreds more troops could soon be sent to Afghanistan, a defence minister hinted yesterday.
Downing Street has already said that the 700 extra troops sent to Helmand temporarily for the operation to protect the integrity of next month’s elections will stay, probably to help to train Afghan troops. However, Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, hinted that the current total of 9,150 could be increased further as military chiefs call for up to 2,500 more soldiers on the ground.

Earlier Gordon Brown accepted the case for more helicopters in the region. In a change of tone, he acknowledged that more were required for the “general” Afghan mission and said that they were being ordered. He denied that a lack of helicopters was costing British lives after Lord Malloch-Brown, the Foreign Office Minister, appeared to back criticism that the British force was not properly equipped. Lord Malloch-Brown told The Daily Telegraph: “We definitely don’t have enough helicopters.” Under pressure from No 10, he later issued a clarification: “There are without doubt sufficient resources in place for current operations.”

The issue dominated the Prime Minister’s monthly press conference at which Mr Brown insisted: “For the operation we are doing at the moment we have the helicopters we need.” He also described as completely wrong any assertion that the recent loss of lives had been caused by an absence of helicopters. “More helicopters in general, yes,” he said. “That is why we are putting them into Afghanistan.” More Merlins would be there by the end of the year, more Chinooks next year, and numbers had increased by 60 per cent over two years, he said.

The remarks put the Prime Minister more in line with the approach taken by present and former British commanders, who have been calling for more help to tackle the Taleban.
Earlier, on a visit to Salisbury Plain where he met troops preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, Mr Rammell confirmed that a review of troop numbers there would take place after the Afghan elections. Asked if he would meet the desire of military chiefs who have asked for an additional 2,000 to 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, the minister said: “This is a Government that does listen to the advice that it gets from the service chiefs. That is why we increased the numbers from 5,500 to 9,000.” He added that the figure was kept under review.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, who will be replaced in August by General Sir David Richards as head of the Army, said last week that he wanted more “boots on the ground”, regardless of whether they were British, US or Afghan. Additional British troops are ready to head out to the front line if called upon. Brigadier James Cowan, commander of 11 Light Brigade, the next brigade to deploy to Afghanistan in the autumn, said: “It is up to ministers to decide. I will make do with what I am given. I am a practical man.”

Elsewhere, the Government’s insistence that it has provided enough equipment was questioned by the former commander of British troops in Helmand, who said that the military effort in Afghanistan was “insufficiently resourced” to counter a widespread insurgency. Brigadier Ed Butler, a retired officer, told The World at One on Radio 4: “What is [Mr Brown] defining as the mission at hand? He may be referring to Operation Panther’s Claw but I think the wider campaign in Afghanistan, and this has been the case from the early days, has been insufficiently resourced to undertake a proper counter-insurgency.”

Back soon with my own ideas for defence in the 21st Century.

Ban Paintball??

2009-05-30T09:56:00.000-07:00

Time out for this activity in Germany?
He may look wacky but he should be allowed to play his corner.

It would appear that the Federal Government in Germany is considering banning paintball. Why? Well after a disturbed individual called Tim Kretcshmer went on a rampage in March with his father's registered pistol, the authorities are seeking to clampdown. There is nothing new about this phenomenon at all. The UK has seen this several times. After Michael Ryan using a Kalashnikov and pistols embarked on a murder spree in Hungerford in 1987, the UK government imposed a ban on self loading rifles.

The following decade after another appalling crime the UK government banned hand guns. This latter ban was after a successful campaign, the snowdrops campaign that garnered much public support. The problems I have with groups like the snowdrops campaigners, is their arguments are emotional rather than practical. I am fully in favour of law abiding citizens having a right to own firearms. True enough both Dunblane and Hungerford were committed by madmen with legally owned guns. However the easy response is excessive statism and draconian legislation fuelled by hysteria and moral panic. There are other factors worth considering. Hamilton the mass murderer in Dunblane was under police investigation and had been the subject of several complaints. His licence should have been suspended by the police under the then existing laws.

Where have these laws left us? Quite simply the only people in the UK at the moment with possession of firearms are either criminals or police. The criminals of course face legal sanction if caught but they tend to regard that as par the course anyway. If you live in a rural area and someone tries to break in to cause you harm your only option is to become a victim of crime. These laws do not and have not made us any safer in that regard. As to the police well of course their firearms units are reasonably (although not especially) well trained. But they carry a huge and unnecessary burden. They are the public's sole guardian, the only people with any legal or practical means of disrupting violent crime against the individual. No wonder they make mistakes. Secondly have the laws worked and prevented gun crime? Have a guess what the answer to that one is? The simple truth is that gun crime has increased fourfold in spite of the UK having the most restrictive laws concerning firearms in the world. The laws passed by the Tories in 1987 and New Labour in 1997, have only acted against the law abiding citizen and keep no one safe.

Back to Germany then and Kretschmer. Kretschmer had been treated for mental illness according to the report by the BBC. He did not in fact posses a firearms licence. Secondly he did not it seems actually play paintball either! He was a loner and disturbed. Yet if the German government thinks that banning a sport that yes may be militaristic or plane wacky will keep anyone safe they are wrong. Just look to the UK for an example of how these laws don't actually achieve anything other than the appeasement of the morally outraged. I fully understand how many people reading this may think things like 'well isn't paintball weird anyhow' or even 'well why would someone want to own a gun anyway?' However when the governments curb these activities we see a disturbing shift in power from the individual to the state that I really do not like. I strongly welcome debate on this topic and views from abroad in places like the USA in particular.

Arabella Dorman's Evocative Iraq artwork

2009-05-13T05:20:00.000-07:00

Down time

Too much too young perhaps

Arabella spent time in Iraq attached to the British Army as an artist in Basra. It's worth pointing out however she was not an 'official artist'. She captures the mood of soldiers and Iraqis alike at different moments. Frequently she depicts moments of 'down time' and here she brilliantly portrays the intimacies and camaraderie of service life. Her images can be viewed here. They also form part of an exhibition at the Frost and Reed Gallery, St James, London on 12-30 May. Well worth a visit her work does not just cover Iraq but other caricatures. Ring the Frost and Reed Gallery on 0207 839 4645.

'Not in my name'- The Hypocrisy of the anti-Israeli Left by Chas Newkey-Burden

2009-05-04T11:10:00.000-07:00

This article is one I have just chanced upon. However it is a brilliant riposte to the position of those on the anti-Semitic left. Also it highlights the moral hypocrisy of those who constantly criticise Israel yet do not make a squeak about the behaviour of Islamists and the Arab states. I need not say any more, Chas in his article below has brilliantly articulated the arguments in favour of Israel and the hypocrisies of those that berate it.

Not in my name: Israel Chapter

This is an extract from Not In My Name: A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy, written by Chas Newkey-Burden and Julie Burchill, and published by Virgin Books.
This chapter was written by Chas Newkey-Burden.

‘When my father was a little boy in Poland, the streets of Europe were covered with graffiti, “Jews, go back to Palestine,” or sometimes worse: “Dirty Yids, piss off to Palestine.” When my father revisited Europe fifty years later, the walls were covered with new graffiti, “Jews, get out of Palestine.”’ - Israeli author Amos Oz.

Everyone knows the proverb of the three wise monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. As shown throughout this book, the modern hypocrite can be very skilled indeed at seeing and hearing no evil. When women are stoned to death in Arab states, when gay men are brutalised in Caribbean countries, the hypocrites’ ability to cover their ears and look the other way is remarkable.

However, the triumvirate cannot be completed for when it comes to the state of Israel the modern hypocrite just cannot stop speaking evil. They will fail to condemn – and sometimes actually support - terrorists who blow up school buses and pizza parlours. They will march hand in hand with people who – quite literally – fundamentally disagree with every basic political principle they claim to hold dear. They will openly question whether Israel even has the right to exist. And all along the way, they will show themselves to be devastating hypocrites.
The anti-Israel brigade would have us believe that the motivation for this vitriolic hatred of Israel is a genuine, compassionate concern for the fate of the Palestinian people. But do they really care about the Palestinians, or is their compassion somewhat selective, to put it politely? In reality, are they only interested in Palestinian suffering for as long as it gives them an opportunity to bash Israel?

This hypocrisy is not entirely modern. When the West Bank and the Gaza strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, those occupations of ‘Palestinian land’ drew not a whimper of protest from the people who spat blood at the ‘occupation’ of those territories by Israel. When Jordan killed thousands of Palestinians and drove just as many of them from their refugee camps into Lebanon, Israel-bashers saw nothing wrong with that at all. Neither did they take issue with Kuwait when it deported Palestinians in the aftermath of the 1991 Iraq war. Why were they silent in all these cases? Because none of them gave them a chance to bash Israel, of course.
Well established as this hypocrisy is, in the 21st century it has well and truly taken root as ‘supporting’ the Palestinians had become achingly fashionable. So when Hamas-sparked violence led to Palestinian students at a West Bank university being brutally beaten and shot by their own people, the Westerners who claim to support the Palestinians raised not a single word of protest or concern. Likewise, when Palestinian women are stabbed to death in “honour killings” across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, no anti-Israel Westerners lose a single moment’s sleep on their behalf.

Likewise, when Palestinian children are hospitalised after being caught in the crossfire of fighting between rival Palestinian factions, there is not a word of condemnation from the West. When Palestinian children are deliberately forced into the line of fire by their own people, where is the concern from those in the West who claim to be their biggest supporters? When terrorists are found to be hiding hand grenades in the cradles where Palestinian babies sleep, where is the outrage? If Israel is accused of torturing Palestinian terror suspects, the hypocrite is indignantly up-in-arms in protest without establishing a single fact but when Palestinians suspected of collaborating are proven to be brutally tortured – sometimes to death - by members of Islamic Jihad, again the silence is deafening.

Similarly, if these people are truly concerned about the Palestinians, then where are their words of praise for Israel when it flings open its hospital doors to them? Just one example: in May 2007 an eight-day-old baby from the Gaza Strip that was suffering with congenital heart complications was treated in a hospital in Israel. An Israeli Magen David Adom ambulance drove into the Gaza Strip, dodging Qassam rockets that were headed for Israel and collected the child for treatment at the Sheba Medical Center in Hashomer, near Tel Aviv. Such cases are far from rare. But I’ve never heard a word of praise for these treatments from any of those in the West who claim to be concerned over the fate of the Palestinians. It’s the same with the refugee question. The heartbreak that the hypocrite feels for Palestinian refugees is only expressed in the context of slamming Israel. When it’s pointed out to them that the Arab world has done precious little to help the refugees, their interest dwindles. And what of the hundreds and thousands of Jewish refugees who were deported from Arab states? They’ve never received any compensation – as Palestinian refugees have from Israel – and no Westerner has ever cried them self to sleep on their behalf.

Any action taken by Israel to deal with Palestinian terrorists is met with abuse and distortion. The case of Jenin was typical. Following scores of suicide bombings organised from within the Jenin refugee camp, Israel entered the camp in search of the terrorists. As the fighting ended the media leapt into action to demonise Israel’s action. The Guardian described Israel’s actions as “every bit as repellent” as the 9/11 attacks. The Evening Standard cried: “We are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide.” The Independent spoke of a “war crime” and The Times claimed there were “mass graves”. The head of the United Nations Refugee Agency was quickly out of the traps to describe the affair as a “human rights catastrophe that has few parallels in recent history”. The EU was nor far behind in its condemnation.

Let’s examine the facts of this massacre, this genocide. In total 75 people died at Jenin. 23 of these were Israeli soldiers and 52 were Palestinians, almost all of them combatants. By even the most hysterical, loaded standards of language this does not constitute genocide, nor anything of the sort. Indeed, the Palestinian death toll would have been much higher – and the Israeli death toll non-existent - had Israel simply bombed the camp from the air. Instead, to avoid civilian casualties, Israel put their own soldiers at risk, sending them in on foot to search through booby-trapped homes.

When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon next visited Israeli troops, one of them asked him: “Why didn’t we bomb the terrorists from the air? That operation cost the lives of more than 20 of our comrades!” Sharon replied: “That is the painful and inevitable price that those who refuse to abandon their humanity have to pay.” In return for paying the painful price of eschewing air attacks, Sharon and the brave Israeli soldiers who entered a terrorist camp on foot were accused of genocide and massacre and spoken of in the same terms as the 9/11 terrorists.
However, the hypocrisy doesn’t end there. In 2007, another Palestinian camp, which had become swamped with suicide bombers, was attacked. This time, the gloves came off. The camp was surrounded by tanks and artillery that fired indiscriminately at the inhabitants. Snipers backed up this fire. The camp’s water and electricity supplies were cut off. Thousands of innocent Palestinians were forced to flee but not before at least 18 had been killed and dozens injured. The camp itself was reduced to rubble. Ultimately, the fighting killed more than 300 people and forced nearly 40,000 Palestinian refugees to flee.

This time, there was next to no coverage in the British media. There was no talk of genocide or massacre. Rather than condemning the attack, the EU and UN were quick to express their support to the army. Even the Arab League came out in support. So what had changed? You guessed it, this time the army dealing with the camp was not the Israeli army but the Lebanese army. How terrifyingly revealing this is of the hypocrisy of those who claim to care about fate of the Palestinians.

During the fighting, tanks and artillery had also fired at residential areas of Lebanon and civilians were inevitably caught in the crossfire. Just months earlier, the anti-war brigade has been marching through the streets of London to express their concern for the people of Lebanon who were caught in the crossfire of Israel’s fighting with Hezbollah. Strangely, the marchers couldn’t get off their self-righteous backsides when Lebanese civilians were being shot at by Islamic groups: this time, the people of Lebanon could go to hell as far as they were concerned.
How different it had been in the summer of 2006. “We are all Hezbollah now,” the modern hypocrites had chanted as they marched in fury against Israel’s latest battle for survival, as the rockets of that terror group were raining down on its cities and kibbutzim. If “Not In My Name” was an embarrassing slogan, then “We are all Hezbollah now” was little short of insane. How could these marchers, who say they oppose misogyny, tyranny, homophobia and genocide, march in support of an organisation which fanatically and brutally promotes all those things?

Because they’re hypocrites, of course, and because their frenzied hatred of Israel has utterly stupefied them. It was embarrassing for them, therefore, when Hezbollah’s leader Hasan Nasrallah told them: “We don’t want anything from you. We just want to eliminate you.” As Martin Amis neatly put it, these demonstrators were “up the arse of the people that want them dead”.

But what were they doing up there? Many no doubt believed that during the war they were backing the little guy of Hezbollah against the big guy of Israel. The truth was somewhat different, though. Hezbollah was no little guy, it was backed by millions of pounds of Iranian and Syrian money. Neither were the two sides of the conflict as clear-cut as they believed. The Israeli Arabs of Haifa spent much of the summer sitting in bunkers to avoid being killed by Hezbollah rockets. Many of these Arabs cheered on the Israeli army throughout the campaign.
imilarly, Ethiopian Jews who Israel had previously bravely airlifted from oppression and starvation were particularly badly hit in Tiberias. How incredible that back in England, many of the groups whose members wear white Make Poverty History wristbands and campaign on Third World debt were willing to cheer as Ethiopians were bombed by Hezbollah.

So no, Israel was not necessarily the Goliath of the conflict. How could a nation the size of Wales, surrounded by millions who want it wiped off the map be a Goliath? However, the courage shown by its soldiers was immense. Lt Colonel Roe Klein was marching at the head of a unit of troops when a Hezbollah man threw a hand grenade at them. Lt Klein jumped on top of the grenade to save his troops, losing his life in the process. Meanwhile, Hezbollah were employing the standard cowardly tactic of hiding among women and children, with wheelchair-bound people a particular favourite. Throughout Israel, the population showed itself to be as brave and humanitarian as ever. Newspapers were full of classified advertisements in which families offered to house those from the north of the country who were under Hezbollah fire. Ultra-Orthodox Jews took in secular Jews, people living in small flats flung open their doors to large families with pets. The blitz spirit also saw youngsters from the big cities like Jerusalem and Tel Aviv organise treats for Arab children from Galilee.

The government arranged for celebrities to visit the bunker-ridden population of the north and even flew in a gay porn star to cheer up gay Israeli troops. As Hezbollah’s rockets rained down over northern Israel, weddings in the region had to be cancelled. So cinema producer Eliman Bardugo organised for those affected to have the chance to be married en masse on the beach in Tel Aviv. Some 50 couples took him up on the offer.
Meanwhile, in London, left-wing people took to the streets to cheer on Hezbollah as it butchered Israeli people. As, for instance, a Hezbollah rocket hit a kibbutz and killed 12 people including an ultra-orthodox Jew who was sitting next to a hippy with pierced ears. The more of these incidents happened, the further the marchers climbed up the arses of the people who wanted them dead.

It would have been familiar territory for many of them. When I went to see the play My Name Is Rachel Corrie in London’s West End, I had sat in an audience littered with white English men and women wearing keffiyeh scarves and some wearing Hamas badges. I see these people – and the marching Hezbollah-wannabes – as terror groupies, a sort of left-wing equivalent of the little boys who play army in playgrounds across England. But these are adults so they really should know better.

I’m not sure the terror groupies look the other way on the topic of Palestinian terrorism. They seem – sorry to say – almost turned-on by it. You surely can’t, after all, overlook something as big as the blowing up of buses or pizza parlours. There is no ‘bigger picture’ regarding people who do that. And why would you appropriate the uniform of the man who backed all that terrorism unless you actively had, well, a bit of a thing for him? For much of the audience, the play about Rachel Corrie must have been a gleefully pornographic experience. They say a picture is worth a thousand words but sometimes a picture can be worth far more than that. There are more than a thousand words in the play, about Corrie, the young US activist who accidentally died during an anti-Israel protest in Gaza in 2003. But none of them shed light on the now-canonised Corrie as much as a photograph taken of her by the Associated Press a month before her death. She was snapped burning an American flag and whipping up the crowd at a pro-Hamas rally.

Naturally, there is no mention of this photograph in the play. Neither is it mentioned that thanks in part to demonstrations of the International Solidarity Movement with who Corrie travelled to the Middle East, the Israel Defence Force was prevented from blocking the passage of weapons which were later shown to have been used to kill Israeli children in southern Israel.
Instead, the play is full of naïve anti-Israel propaganda from the mouth of Corrie. “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance,” she wrote in 2003 as Palestinian suicide bombs were slaughtering Israelis. Lest we forget who the real star of the story is, towards the end of the play Corrie writes: “When I come back from Palestine I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work.” We’re back in self-indulgence territory, aren’t we? Not in my name. My name is Rachel Corrie. We’re all Hezbollah now. Thousands are dying but it’s all about me. The hypocrisy of the audience was depressing. I wonder if any of were even aware that Hamas had danced over Corrie’s grave when she died? To the Palestinians, a dead young American girl was a wonderful publicity coup. Had any of the audience travelled to the Middle East in a Corriesque trip of self-indulgence, the Palestinians would have crossed their fingers in the hope they too died.

As I say, the modern hypocrite is delighted to overlook misogyny, homophobia and brutal clampdowns on all manner of person freedoms in Arab states and the other side of this coin of hypocritical currency is the way they simultaneously overlook the extraordinarily positive record Israel has on such issues. Take the case of Golda Meir, Israel’s first female Prime Minister who took the top job in 1969, just 21 years into the country’s existence and a full decade before England had our first female Prime Minister. In some Arab states, women are not allowed to go to school. In Israel they can become the most powerful person in the country.
Meir herself was well aware of this spectacular contrast. In 1948, when she was a negotiator with the Jewish Agency, she set off on a secret mission to meet King Abdullah of Transjordan. The meeting was secret so she travelled with the Agency’s Arab expert Ezra Danin and posed as his wife. She recalled: “I would travel in the traditional dark and voluminous robes of an Arab woman. I spoke no Arabic at all but as a Moslem wife accompanying her husband it was most unlikely that I would be called upon to say anything to anyone.” How hypocritical it is of those left-wingers in the West that they can hate a country with tales such as these throughout its history.

It’s just the same with gay issues. Left-wingers who say they passionately believe in gay rights manage to put that passion aside when it comes to their view of the only country in the Middle East with a positive record on the issue. A wonderfully positive record, in fact. In 2006, within days of the country’s fighting with Hezbollah ending, I flew to Israel to research a feature on gay life in the Holy Land. Before leaving, I’d been warned by anti-Israel Westerners to expect to find a very homophobic country. Had any of them bothered to visit Israel, they’d have discovered it’s nothing of the sort. Workplace discrimination against gay people is outlawed; the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) has openly gay members; in schools, teenagers learn about the difficulties of being gay and the importance of treating all sexualities equally. The Israel Defence Force has dozens of openly gay officers who, like all gay soldiers in its ranks, are treated equally by order of the government.

The Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples are eligible for spousal and widower benefits. The country has gay football teams. Most mainstream television dramas in Israel regularly feature gay storylines. When transsexual Dana International won the 1998 Eurovision Song Contest as Israel’s representative, 80 per cent of polled Israelis called her “an appropriate representative of Israel”. These facts are there for all to see but it is only on visiting Israel that you discover how happily the different sections of the society coexist. I interviewed a gay Israeli man on Tel Aviv’s “Hilton beach” – it is opposite the Hilton hotel – which is also known as the “gay beach”, where men openly check each other out and pick each other up. It is neighboured by the city’s religious beach which has separate bathing days for men and women. And all this is just yards from Tel Aviv’s Independence Park, which is the main gay cruising area in Tel Aviv. The cruising park in Jerusalem has the same name.

Elsewhere in Tel Aviv is the House of Freedom. Opened in the late 1990s, this is a shelter for gay, lesbian and transgender youngsters between the ages of 12 and 18 who have been thrown out of home after coming out to their parents. At the House they are counselled by social workers who then visit the parents and attempt to bring about reconciliation. Those attempts are often successful, each year hundreds of gay youngsters return to a better home thanks to this remarkable institution. And everywhere you go in the city, gay men walk hand in hand more openly that they even would in London’s Soho. It is staggering that Western left-wingers who claim to believe in gay rights can be so furiously opposed to tolerant Israel. The tolerance is not confined to Tel Aviv, either. When some in Jerusalem opposed the staging of the gay pride parade in the capital in 2007, the media presented a city on the brink of civil war. I happened to be in Jerusalem that week – though I didn’t attend the parade – and I witnessed no unrest. Perhaps the strongest opposition I witnessed to the parade came from a taxi driver. I asked him what he thought about the parade and he sighed deeply before saying: “Oh it was terrible for the traffic.” He was right, too!

By hating Israel, the pro-gay-rights left are not just proving to be hypocritical, they are also endangering the one hope that gay Palestinians have. The leading gay rights organisation in Israel organises Arabic gay evenings where gay Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza strip are invited to come and party with Israelis – and many take up the invitation. “We are their only hope,” says one of the organisers. “If they came out where they live, they would be killed but they can come and party with us in Israel.” As has been documented by human rights groups, gay Palestinians are routinely tortured and murdered by their own people. They often flee to the safety of Israel.

The attraction that Israel should hold for believers in the rainbow alliance doesn’t end with its record on women and gay men. I remember on a road trip from the Dead Sea to Tel Aviv marvelling at a quartet of an ultra-orthodox Jew, an Arab, a uniformed Israeli soldier and a mini-skirt wearing girl in her late teens all engaging in friendly chit-chat as they waited for some traffic lights to change. Such sights are far from uncommon as Israel is home to one of the planet’s most diverse people: dreadlocked Ethiopians, and their fellow Africans from Yemen, Egypt and Morocco exist alongside people from Iraq, Iran, Russian and Latin America. Then there are Asians from the Far East and Israeli Arabs, the latter group enjoying more personal freedoms in Israel than they would in any Arab state.

My experiences in Israel might seem surprising to the reader who hasn’t been there – particularly given the predominance of reports casting the country as a villainous, apartheid state. There exists a peculiar unwillingness to accept good news from Israel, which contrasts with the way that paradigm-shifting reports on ‘The hidden modernity of Tehran’ are welcomed with open arms. When I attempted to include the scene that I had witnessed at the traffic lights in a magazine feature I wrote about the research trip to Israel, I had to go through an exasperating discussion with the commissioning editor. He didn’t seem to know that Israeli Arabs exist and insisted that the scene I described couldn’t have occurred. He’d never been to Israel but was quite sure that he was right and I was wrong.

He was in good company in his blissful ignorance. Within hours of my return from the trip, I received a call from a journalist acquaintance who asked me with genuine shock: “What’s all this about you going to Israel?” He said that a mutual journalist acquaintance of ours was “absolutely disgusted” with me for going there and that he hoped I was “going to put the boot in” when I wrote my articles. These were not close acquaintances, I hadn’t even spoken to one of them for nearly nine years and it must have taken them some digging around to find my new telephone number. They obviously thought it was worth the trouble to have a dig at a writer who was friendly to Israel. Apparently the “absolutely disgusted” man – a weekly columnist on a high-profile magazine - has since tried to get an article published that claims that Tony Blair murdered Yasser Arafat.

The editor of another magazine once told me I was not allowed to write that Yasser Arafat turned down Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David in 2000. I asked why and he replied “because of a need for balance.” I pointed out that nobody, including Arafat, has ever disputed that he rejected Barak’s offer and the editor replied: “Well, I don’t know about that but you still can’t write it.” The article in question was an “opinion” piece and taking sides was the order of the day each week in that column. Not if the article was about Israel, it seemed. Get this for hypocrisy, though: the same magazine had happily published articles accusing Israel of “war crimes” and carried advertising accusing Israel of apartheid policies. Clearly, the need for balance is relative.
Not that there was much balance in the motion the National Union Of Journalists passed in 2007 to boycott Israel. As a writer I felt shame and despair at this motion. Those emotions of shame and despair were not joined by shock, though, because much of the British media has long been absorbed by a blind hatred of Israel.

Broadsheet newspapers print editorials that are so biased and distorted that Osama Bin Laden would probably blush at them and say: “Steady on! We can’t print that!” The BBC refuses to describe suicide bombers who blow up buses full of Israeli schoolchildren as “terrorists” even though it has used that term to describe bombers in London, Iraq and Indonesia. One of its correspondents told a Hamas rally that he and his colleagues were “waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder with the Palestinian people”.

Why did the NUJ choose Israel for a boycott? The country has an entirely free press. If the NUJ wanted to boycott a country, then Russia, China, Zimbabwe and Pakistan would have been more sensible options, given their record on press freedom. The timing, too, was ridiculous. Shortly before the motion was passed, BBC journalist Alan Johnston was kidnapped by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. So why did the NUJ respond to this by boycotting Israel?

The coverage of the Alan Johnston case was riddled with hypocrisy. Every day, the BBC devoted acres of space to the story. Yet the BBC largely ignored the plight of young Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped by Palestinians. Indeed, the BBC refuses to even use the term “kidnap” in relation to the snatching of teenager Corporal Gilad Shalit, preferring to say he was “captured”. I was in Israel during Johnston’s captivity and had a conversation about his case with an Arab from the West Bank. He said: “I’m surprised that they took someone from the BBC. Everyone knows the BBC is totally biased for the Palestinians. I bet they’re not so for the Palestinians now, though!” When I told him that the BBC was just as pro-Palestinian as ever, he raised his eyes to the heavens. “That’s strange,” he said.
True. But then Auntie Beeb has long shown its true colours on the conflict. A 2007 a leaked internal BBC memo written by Bowen blamed Israel for all the woes of the Gaza Strip, despite the fact that Israel had withdrawn two years earlier from Gaza!

Hmm, what we need is a man who can effortlessly show these BBC buffoons just how hypocritical they are. Step forward and take a bow Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Israel and all-round hero of both myself and my co-author. He was interviewed on the BBC during the 2006 Hezbollah conflict and made mince meat of his quizzer:

Interviewer: “How come so many more Lebanese have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?”
Netanyahu: “Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?”

Interviewer: “Why not?”

Netanyahu: “Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the war was caused by Germany’s aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima.

“Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the RAF tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children’s hospital, killing 83 little children.

“Perhaps you have another question?”
Perhaps indeed! Perhaps the academics who chose to boycott Israel at the same time as the NUJ might have asked themselves some questions too. In 2007, they voted to boycott Israeli academic institutions in a protest supposedly on behalf of the Palestinians. Meanwhile, back in the real world a young Jordanian-Palestinian woman, was graduating with a Masters degree from Ben Gurion University in Israel. Dana Rassas was trained by the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies at Kibbutz Ketura in the Negev, and then went on to study the Israeli water desalination program at the Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies at Ben Gurion University. As a result of her studies in Israel, Rassas is now helping to solve Jordan’s water problems. If they boycotters had their way, she’d never have had any of these chances.
To take a wider view, why is it that so many people who cling to the notion of human rights when considering the plight of the Palestinians couldn’t give a hoot about other groups around the world like the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Armenians and the Chechens?

Is it because these groups didn’t have the fortune of being in dispute with Jewish people? Either way, it is indisputable that the incessant focus of the human rights movement on the actions of Israel has allowed genuinely horrific human rights abuses in other parts of the world to go unnoticed.As we keep seeing, whatever it does Israel cannot win and so we end up returning to the graffiti seen by Amos Oz’s father in Poland. First: go back to Palestine, then: get out of Palestine. Anti-semitism has always been dominated by contradictions. The Jews have been attacked for being both communist schemers and capitalists plotting to take over the world. They can’t stop sticking their noses into others’ business yet they also must be attacked for keeping themselves to themselves. They were taunted for being too weak when the Germans tried to eliminate them from the face of the earth and are now slammed for being too strong when the Arabs try the same trick.
Ironically, for all the attention and criticism that Western hypocrites throw at Israel, the biggest questioners of the state and its actions are Israelis themselves. Israel’s Supreme Court is a thorn in the side of the government and army and frequently overrules both. It regularly examines petitions brought by Palestinian people and rules in their favour. Many of its judgements have restricted the options open to the army and in passing them, the Court has acknowledged that its rulings will cause Israeli loss of life but insisted that such steps are needed in the interests of humanity.

When terrorist leaders who have arranged the slaughter of Israeli people are killed by the Israel Defence Force, there is no cheering in the street as is seen among Palestinians when another school bus is blown up by a suicide bomber, a favourite tactic of there’s as seen in November 2000. Instead, commissions of inquiry are set up to examine whether the elimination of these men who wanted to blow murder their children was ethical and correct. On and on it goes, this relentless self-examination by a country that has faced abuse, distortion and calls for its destruction since the very minute it was established in 1948.

But then that’s the thing about Israel: strong, plucky, moral, deeply self-critical yet determinedly happy and upbeat, it is everything the modern hypocrite is not. I love it.
Not In My Name: A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy, written by Chas Newkey-Burden and Julie Burchill, is published by Virgin Books.

30 Years ago on this day..

2009-05-04T05:09:00.000-07:00

Maggie at the gates of Number 10

(on a side note can you see how close the press got in those days?)

I think Blue is definitely the right colour for this post. 30 years ago today Margaret Thatcher assumed the premiership of the UK. Her extraordinary leadership bought both pain and progress for the country. Good articles from both the BBC and the Daily Telegraph outline her legacy. Text from the Telegraph below but I strongly urge readers to check out the BBC link above the slide show in that article is a good one.

Margaret Thatcher's tumultuous premiership

Margaret Thatcher stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street on that fateful day, May 4 1979, beaming and waving at the cheering crowds, but looking isolated and vulnerable.

Last Updated: 11:26AM BST 04 May 2009

Margaret Thatcher on the doorstep of No 10, with John Sergeant on the left Photo: PA
Was she the right person, people were asking, to tackle a Britain which was bedevilled by strikes and cursed by bullying trade union bosses who seemed to exert more power even than the Cabinets of Labour governments which preceded her administration?
How wrong her critics, with their patronising remarks, proved to be. For Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Britain's first woman prime minister, was about to embark on what was undeniably the most tumultuous peacetime premiership of the 20th century.

She unprecedentedly won three elections in a row, during a period of Tory rule which kept Labour out of office for 18 years. And she would almost certainly have won a fourth election had she not, in 1990, been "betrayed" - to use her own word - by colleagues who brought about her downfall after 11 years in power. Now, 30 years on, the passage of time has not tempered one jot the feelings people still have about her. Her political enemies to this day regard her as little short of diabolical, while her supporters still refer to her in almost beatific terms. It is seemingly impossible to have luke-warm views about Margaret Thatcher. That is a mark of the impact she had made not only on this country but around the world as well. She fought a brilliant campaign in 1979. Her remark that she understood how to manage a household budget and was equipped, therefore, to run the country prudently, was a stroke of genius.

At one point during the campaign she unwisely agreed to pick up a grubby and struggling calf at the behest of photographers. Her husband Denis, shouted out: "Put the bloody thing down, dear. You'll kill it." The beast expired on the following day. The Tories won that 1979 general election, in the wake of the disastrous Winter of Discontent, with a comfortable majority in the Commons of more than 40. Mrs Thatcher famously stood in Downing Street quoting what was said to be St Francis of Assisi: "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony... where there is despair, may we bring hope." In fact, some say the words are more likely Victorian.

She went inside to pick her new Cabinet, saying: "I feel an aura of calm." But there was nothing calm about the next 11 years: she transformed the derided so-called "sick man of Europe" into a robust, world economic power again. She tamed the trade unions, effectively emasculating the union leaders and handing them back to their members, as she put it. She responded to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands by doing what nobody believed she dared to do, sending a majestic task force 8,000 miles into the southern hemisphere, and driving the invaders off the islands.

She took on Arthur Scargill and defeated the miners after a year-long bitter struggle.
She ended the 13-year rebellion against the Crown in Rhodesia.
In 1984 she narrowly survived an IRA attack on the Grand Hotel, Brighton, saying two days later: "This was the day I was not meant to see." And she abolished the Greater London Council and other metropolitan authorities. Margaret Thatcher, who never promoted a woman from the Commons into her Cabinet, had complete control over her ministers. "I don't mind how much my ministers talk, as long as they do what I say," she said.

She strode the world like a colossus, opening up an entirely new relationship with the Kremlin - "I can do business with this man," she said of Mikhail Gorbachev - and she struck up an intense political relationship with Ronald Reagan, the US President. And she treated many European leaders and bureaucrats with what some people described as contempt and what her arch-enemy Edward Heath called "foghorn diplomacy". Brussels Eurocrats often visibly cowered before her handbagging tirades.

And she went on to defeat Labour, under the feeble leadership of Michael Foot in 1983, and in 1987 routed Labour again with Neil Kinnock at the helm. Even her political adversaries admired her for her conviction rather than consensus politics, and her "lady's not for turning" utter refusal to be budged off course. Left-winger Tony Benn once said he preferred her style of leadership to what he regarded as the fudged style of Neil Kinnock.
But her reign did not end as triumphantly as she would have wished. It juddered uncomfortably to a halt.

By the time she had been in power for 10 years, some Tory MPs started to mutter that she had been there long enough. And she was seriously weakened by a leadership battle with a barely known and insignificant Tory back-bencher stalking horse Sir Anthony Meyer.
She beat him easily but 60 MPs had either voted for Meyer or abstained - a hugely damaging blow to her authority.

Events followed thick and fast. Nigel Lawson (described by Thatcher as "unassailable") had already resigned a few days earlier. Sir Geoffrey Howe resigned from the Government and delivered a devastating Commons attack on the Prime Minister which shook her to the core.
Michael Heseltine, who had stormed out of the Cabinet in a rage over the Westland Helicopters affair three years earlier, announced he would challenge her for the leadership.
And on the day of that election she foolishly, some would say, attended a meaningless summit in Paris when her supporters thought her time would be more profitably spent at Westminster drumming up votes. She won, but not by a sufficient margin to avoid a second ballot.
Thatcher appeared on the steps of the British Embassy in Paris, looking shaken but boldly saying: "I fight on. I fight to win."

But on her return, her Cabinet colleagues, one by one, warned her that defeat stared her in the face if she did fight on. Reluctantly she announced she would quit and days later she left Downing Street for the last time, in tears. Feminists had applauded her arrival in Downing Street, but that degenerated into disappointment and even rancour. To this day they complain that she did nothing for women. At one point Thatcher said: "I owe nothing to Women's Lib."
But her premiership was not all sound and fury. She loved children and adored her grandson Michael.

One bitterly cold day in Beijing, scores of tiny children had turned out to parade in her honour. They were shivering and dressed in the flimsiest of clothing. Thatcher took on the might of the Chinese army and won. She approached a gold-braided officer and effectively told him: "Either you give these children some warm clothes or I go home." The officer cowered and complied.
She once attended a children's party at Westminster, urging them to eat up their sausages and baked beans. A year later, one parent said to his small daughter: "Would you like to go to that party in the House of Commons again this year?" The youngster replied: "Yes, but only if that nice dinner lady is there... "
At one stage, the current Tory leadership appeared to be trying to distance itself from her. David Cameron astonishingly once refused an opportunity to have his photograph taken with her - although she had agreed.
But he quickly realised that that attitude was unwise, to say the least. Margaret Thatcher, after all these years, remains an honoured figure in Tory politics and no doubt will remain so for years to come.
But perhaps her greatest misjudgment came early in her political career when she said: "There won't be a woman Prime Minister in my lifetime."

Is NATO fit for role?

2009-05-04T04:30:00.000-07:00

In fact as the US 'Surge' NATO will be rolled
back.

Interesting article from the American Spectator. In short I believe that NATO is facing a crisis, one that has much to do with the European allies (with notable exceptions) lacking conviction. I hope to blog much more about Defence issues in the future and about the UK military. Here is the full text of the article below, I agree with the thrust of it although the comments concerning the Germans border on the puerile. Please comment below, interesting isn't it how after all the European political elites gushed over Obama they can't lift a finger to help him in Afghanistan?

What's NATO for Again?

By Doug Bandow on 5.4.09 @ 6:06AM

NATO has been with us 60 years. The organization staged the usual self-congratulatory anniversary ceremony last month, with President Barack Obama in attendance. Exactly what the organization is supposed to do these days isn't clear, however. A herd of heads of state and government celebrated the alliance's birthday without bothering to explain its purpose.
The original goal of NATO, articulated by Lord Hastings Ismay, the alliance's first Secretary General, was to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in. The first objective was firmly achieved two decades ago when the Berlin Wall fell, the Eastern European satellites spun out of Moscow's orbit, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Russia's oil-based rise has changed nothing: Moscow might be able to impose its will on neighboring Georgia, which was part of Imperial Russia as well as the USSR. But there will be no Red Army romp to the Atlantic. With ten times Russia's GDP and nearly four times Russia's population, Europe is more than capable of defending itself.

Meeting the second goal arose naturally out of the rubble of World War II. A few neo-Nazis might still meet furtively to discuss the coming of the Fourth Reich, but most Germans have run far from their past. Today the Bundeswehr is primarily a recruiting mechanism for social service agencies; indeed, when drafted two-thirds of young men choose alternative civilian work. The once feared German warriors are a memory.

The problem is not a lack of individual bravery. As of March, 34 German soldiers and policemen had been killed in Afghanistan. But Berlin insists on deploying military units to the north, where they aren't needed. And they no longer are combat-worthy. Reinhold Robbe, the parliamentary commissioner for the military, observed: "Plainly put, the soldiers are too fat, exercise too little, and take little care of their diet." London's Daily Mail headlined one story: "German soldiers are 'too fat to fight' Taliban because they drink so much (while our boys go dry)." Europe can breathe a sigh of relief -- no one need worry about German soldiers singing Deutschland Uber Alles and goose-stepping down their own, let alone someone else's, streets.

Which leaves keeping America in, but to what end? The U.S. isn't needed to protect Europe from the Russians or Germans. Instead, Washington provides prosperous and populous allies, whose collective economy and population are larger than that of the United States, with a defense insurance policy at American expense. If the Balkans get messy, Washington sends in real military forces. If something should go terribly wrong with Russia, we know who the Europeans would expect to save the day. Hint: It wouldn't be the overweight and well-lubricated Bundeswehr.

Other members of NATO want the U.S. to believe that it gets something out of the alliance. But it's hard to see what. Albania and Croatia joined the organization this year. They added geopolitical liabilities rather than military assets to NATO. Proposals to bring in Georgia and Ukraine, which are involved in complex geopolitical disputes with Russia, risk another confrontation with nuclear-armed Moscow, this one in the latter's rather than America's backyard, and over conflicts in which America has no stake.

The U.S. isn't even getting much out of its allies for its number one geopolitical objective of the present, Afghanistan. The British, Danes, French, and Australians have fought. So have the Canadians and Dutch, who, unfortunately, will be going home over the next year or two.
But most of the nearly two score countries (NATO members plus other states) have followed the German model -- modest detachments deployed in regions and under conditions, called "caveats," designed to ensure that they are never shot at. Indeed, American commanders say that ISAF stands for "I Saw America Fight" rather than "International Security Assistance Force."

Consider the record of the Czech contingent. The Herald Sun (Australia) reported that "When asked by the Britons to attack Afghan rebels, the commander of a special operations unit (SOG) said 'we're not going to, it's dangerous,' then ordered his men to get in trucks and return to the base." At another point the SOG commander rejected a British request for aid by noting that his 35-member unit was on vacation. This is "help" that Washington doesn't need.

The Obama administration is having no more luck in enlisting additional European assistance than did its predecessor. So far the response to the president's plea, writes William Pfaff, is "65 men with two F-16s promised by Belgium; 12 trainers and a small troop contingent (probably from the gendarmerie) for the election in Afghanistan next month, with a larger French contribution to the new, combined European Gendarmerie Force that has already dispatched 300 to 400 men and women, all to improve Afghanistan's own national police, so far without conspicuous success." The Europeans also are promising a "civilian surge."

It comes as no surprise that the Europeans see little cause for fighting in Afghanistan, but NATO invoked Article 5 in 2001 with great fanfare for the first time as a show of support for the U.S. If the alliance is not needed to defend Europe and won't aid America elsewhere, then, really, what is its purpose?

Some alliance members recognize that NATO is failing its Afghanistan test. Warned British Defense Secretary John Hutton: "Success in Afghanistan is fast emerging as the test of NATO's relevance in this new post-cold war age." If the alliance can't act there, then "NATO will risk being irrelevant, a talking shop where process is everything," he adds.

In fact, that's all NATO has become. It's time to give NATO, at least an American-dominated NATO, a decent burial. The U.S. should pull out, leaving the Europeans to construct whatever continental security architecture seems best. If they want to sort out the Balkans, guard the Caucasus, or engage in some other far-flung mission, they should be free to do so. Without American forces.

At the same time, Washington could work out agreements with any European nations with real militaries that see the value of continued security cooperation. That likely would include Britain and France. And maybe Germany, if its soldiers would lay off the sausages and beer.

US Navy frees Richard Phillips

2009-04-13T10:36:00.000-07:00

This is very good news. The problem of course with piracy in this part of the world is not a straight forward case of good versus evil. Although the pirates have to be stopped it's worth pointing out that some sources have stated that the collapse of Somalia's fishing industry has much to do with the EU. However the EU and NATO do now need to secure its shipping. Furthermore it's likely that the relative anarchy in the region will be exploited by Al Qaeda.

The good news is that this operation is a good show of mettle on behalf of those opposed to such brigandry. Furthermore it’s a further indication of how well the US armed forces are responding to asymmetrical warfare.

A sorry tale of exploitation and immorality now fully exposed... 'Alfie' is not a Dad after all.

2009-03-26T10:02:00.000-07:00

It turns out young Alfie may have been led down the garden path.

I remember the story of teenage 'dad' Alfie Pattern when it was originally disclosed by the Sun in February. At the time I was shocked and a more than a little peeved to see the good use my tax money was being put to. However it was exploitation, a cynical attempt by the Sun to exploit the sorry antics of a very young and surely feckless couple. The story has bow been updated by the Mirror. Now it seems that young Alfie is not the father and the girl Chantelle has perhaps spun him (and the Sun) along. Is it fair to say she is a slapper? Certainly yes but the real culprits are her mother and the media who manipulated these muppets. See the full story below. A few questions need to be asked:

1. How much did the Sun pay to the 'parents' of Alfie and Chantelle for this story.

2. Why did the Sun report the story as fact in spite of the fact that 4' tall Alfie is clearly pre-pubescent and therefore unlikely to be a father.

3. Alfie in particular has been through the mill during this whole affair and was exploited by the Sun and utterly greedy adults who should have been concerned what their children were up to; not making a quick buck out of it.

Chantelle the 'mother' is from a family of welfare dependents as to an extent is Alfie. This case like the Karen Matthews case displays the utter moral fecklessness that excessive state nannying produces. A fecklessness that as taxpayers we all pay for. I am a libertarian and the last person to lecture people on sexual morality. My attitude is that what consenting adults get up to is their business as long as no serious harm is caused. However in a case like this involving children the state needs to come down hard and prosecute those involved starting with the guardians. Instead the state funds this behaviour through excessive welfare.

DNA tests show boy-dad Alfie Patten is NOT the daddy

By Euan Stretch 26/03/2009
Exclusive

The schoolboy alleged to have become a dad aged 12 is not the baby’s father, the Mirror can reveal.
Alfie Patten, now 13, had a £300 DNA test after half a dozen boys claimed to have slept with schoolgirl pal Chantelle Stedman, 15.
It proved the 4ft-tall pupil was not the father of her seven-week-old girl Maisie Roxanne.
The result will be a blow to Alfie who was “devastated” by the boys’ claims and “adored” Maisie.
He was convinced he was the dad after a single night of unprotected sex with Chantelle.
Before he took the test, he said: “I didn’t know about DNA tests before but mum explained it’s when they do a swab in your mouth and it tells if you’re the dad. So if I have it, they can all shut up.”
His mum Nicole, 43, added at the time: “It had not even crossed Alfie’s mind whether Chantelle had not been faithful to him. He’s absolutely devastated that these lads say they slept with her.”
Chantelle became pregnant aged 14 after she “forgot to take” her contraceptive pill last May.
At the time, she claimed: “Alfie’s the only boy I’ve been with.”

Alfie insisted: “I am the only boyfriend Chantelle’s had and we’ve been together two years. I must be the dad. When she found out she was having a baby, I asked her, ‘Am I the dad?’ and she went, ‘Yeah’, so I believe her.”
Last month it was claimed Alfie had been the victim of a cruel con.
Chantelle told her half-sister Jodie O’Neill, 17, the father could have been one of a number of boys she slept with at her parents’ home in Eastbourne, East Sussex.
She said her mum Penny, 38, ordered her to keep saying she had been a virgin when she slept with Alfie, from Hailsham.
The baby scandal began when Alfie and his dad Dennis, 45, gave an interview to the press days after Maisie was born last month.
A succession of politicians, including Tory leader David Cameron, bemoaned the nation’s declining moral standards.
Mr Cameron said at the time: “I hope somehow they grow up into responsible parents but parenthood is just not something they should be thinking about.”
Dad-of-ten Dennis regularly spoke on his son’s behalf. After Maisie’s birth he said: “He hasn’t a clue what a baby means and can’t explain how he feels. When I spoke to him he started crying.
“He said it was the first time he’d had sex, he didn’t know what he was doing or the complications that could come. I’ll talk to him again and it’ll be the birds and bees talk.”

'Make Every woman wear a Burkha'- More from the 'anti - war protestor'

2009-03-15T04:42:00.000-07:00

This is another gem from Choudhary. Interestingly though in an example of naivety another blogger described Choudhary's group of Muslims who greeted British Soldiers with placards saying 'Anglians go to hell' as anti-war protesters. The poster went on to say that these individuals were right to protest as 'Between 601,027 and 1 million people have died since March 2003 as a result of the invasion of Iraq.' Leaving aside the fact that the statistics are incorrect, a better question would be 'who did most of the killing'? Here is the problem therefore with describing Choudhary's motley band of Jihadists as 'anti war'. They are not, they are in fact pro-war, pro-Jihad. Look at the article below for just one example of Choudhary's views. Also bear in mind that most of the killing in Iraq was done by Jihadists, the Al Qaeda movement and Shia militants aligned with and sponsored by Iran. It becomes clear that these protestors are far from linking their arms and singing 'we will overcome'. They are in fact supporters of extreme acts of violence which have killed many Iraqis. It was not American troops who ploughed suicide car bombs into Shia pilgrims in Iraq. Never mind of course Choudhary et al they have a right to peacefully protest in the UK, I just wish that Geert Wilders had a right to come into Britain for a peaceful debate as well. Full text of Choudhary’s latest below:

‘MAKE EVERY WOMAN WEAR A BURKHA’

Anjem Choudary
Saturday March 14,2009
By Martyn Brown
A MUSLIM hate preacher who demanded that all British women be forced to wear burkhas faced a storm of outrage last night.
Firebrand Anjem Choudary said he wanted every woman to be covered by a full-length cloak in his vision of Britain under Sharia law.The lawyer, who praised the Mumbai terror attacks, also said he wanted to see the “flag of Allah” flying over Downing Street, adulterers stoned to death and drunks whipped.Choudary, 41, sparked fury this week when he branded British soldiers “cowards” and was behind a sickening anti-war protest against troops who were arriving home from Iraq to a heroic welcome.Last night politicians and fellow Muslims condemned his comments while some called for him to leave the country.Choudary, the leader of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, a group set up following the banning of extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, led by now-exiled preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, said he offered “a pure Islamic state with Sharia law in Britain”. He said: “Every woman, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, would have to wear a traditional burkha and covereverything apart from her face and hands in public.”“In matters to do with the judicial system and the penal code, one male witness is sufficient to counter the testimony of two females. People who commit adultery would be stoned to death.”Despite becoming possibly the most despised man in Britain with his fanatical views, he remained unrepentant.“That’s a badge I would wear with pride,” he said. “It’s inevitable that when you offer an alternative morality and way of life, many people will hate you for it.”

He said Britons “with their alcohol, gambling, prostitution and pornography” live “like animals in a jungle” and added that “anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public”. He claimed last month on his website Islam4UK that alcohol was “the root of all evil”. Last night his comments were met with outrage. Conservative MP and ex-Army officer Patrick Mercer said: “If anyone thinks that those views are a step forward in society they are seriously deluded. They are repellent and repulsive. I strongly believe the Home Secretary should seriously think about this man’s right to live in Britain.”Tory MP Philip Davies said: “The man is an idiot who does more to incite racial tensions than anyone else. “If he wants Britain to live under Sharia law then why doesn’t he go to another country?” Choudary was also attacked by moderate Muslims. Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “Choudary and his tiny group of hooligans are about as representative of British Muslim opinion as the BNP is of ordinary British public opinion. “If their inflammatory remarks ever cross the boundary into actual incitement to violence then they should be prosecuted.”Iraqi war victim Ali Abbas, 18, who came to the UK after losing both arms and his family in the conflict, said: “Where was this Muslim preacher when I and countless others were lying in hospital beds not knowing if we were going to die?”

Johnson Beharry VC with Shocking Indictment of Mental Health Care for Veterans

2009-02-28T08:01:00.000-08:00

The 29 year old Grenadian was awarded Britain's highest award the VC.

From the BBC. Seeing as our government is keen to commit troops to military operations it is entirely reasonable to expect that our society takes care of them upon their return. Furthermore those suffering from the after effects of the conflict should receive the best help and treatment. However according to Beharry the support available from agencies such as the NHS is poor. Certainly more needs to be done, is it too much to ask that say the standard of care available is better than or equal to the effort our welfare state goes to support people such as Abu Qatada. This is a serious issue as witnessed with the issues affecting veterans of the Falklands conflict of 1982. Full text of BBC article below:

Veteran mental care 'a disgrace'

L/Cpl Beharry also spoke about his own mental health Britain's highest-decorated serving soldier has criticised the government for failing to help ex-servicemen and women suffering mental health problems. Lance Corporal Johnson Beharry, who was awarded the Victoria Cross, said it was "disgraceful" that some veterans struggled to get treatment.

He told the BBC the Army provided "first-class" treatment but ex-soldiers were forced to wait on the NHS. The MoD said a "huge amount of work" was being done on mental illness.
L/Cpl Beharry, who was given the VC for twice leading comrades to safety during attacks in Iraq, called on the government to give more help to his comrades suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, depression and mental breakdowns. The 29-year-old told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he has to live with constant pain, nightmares, mood swings and unexplained rages, five years after receiving a serious head wound. Going forward, the demand on our services is going to be ever-increasing Robert Marsh, Combat Stress Yet he had to wait three hours in hospital to see an NHS doctor about his trauma.
"A lot of soldiers get discharged from the Army and have to be on the NHS for treatment.
"Having experienced it as a serving soldier, what it's like being on the NHS, I feel it's ridiculous because these ex-servicemen and women would not get that treatment they really need. What's going to happen to them?"
Mental symptoms can take a long time to surface and they are harder to deal with in civilian life, he said.

"[In the Army], we have places to go and get the help at the moment but my worry is that ex-servicemen and women, if something like that happens to them and they have to wait two to four hours on the NHS."
Earlier, in an interview with the Independent, he said it was "disgraceful" that those who had served their country in Iraq and Afghanistan were forced to wait for NHS treatment and charities had been forced to step in where ministers had failed.
"You spend six months on the battlefield and you have to defend yourself every day and then you come back to normal life and go to Tesco and someone runs into your trolley.
"You have to stop and think - it is only a trolley, you are not on the battlefield."

General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, said: "Ex-servicemen and women are cared for by the NHS.
"They should have a priority. Government policy is that they have priority within the NHS and I should hope that the NHS managers remind themselves of that."
As well as NHS responsibility, there was vital work being done by charities and the voluntary sector, he said.
'Not complacent'
Defence Minister Kevan Jones said: "We recognise mental illnesses as serious and disabling conditions but also ones that can be treated.
"Our dedicated psychiatric teams based in theatre provide the very best diagnosis and treatment of psychological illnesses both during and after deployments."
He insisted the government was "not complacent" and had awarded a new contract to the NHS for the provision of in-patient mental health services.
"In addition we have recently introduced mental health pilots across the UK; commissioned research into mental health conditions; and expanded our medical assessment programme at St Thomas' Hospital to include assessment of veterans with operational service from 1982," he added.
Figures published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in November showed nearly 4,000 new cases of mental health disorder were diagnosed among armed services personnel in 2007.
We need to understand that our duty of care lasts a lifetime
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox
They also showed personnel sent to Afghanistan or Iraq were more likely to suffer post traumatic stress disorder.
Robert Marsh of Combat Stress, a mental health charity for ex-servicemen, said the number of cases was bound to increase in the next few years.
"I think to be fair we work in partnership with the MoD as much as we can. Last year they gave us round about £4m in respect of war pensioners that we are treating.
"But I think that going forward, the demand on our services is going to be ever-increasing and there is going to be a funding challenge and perhaps we need to question where we are getting our money from."
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said there was "a bow wave of mental health problems building up".
"We need to understand that our duty of care lasts a lifetime," he said, "And that in areas such as mental health we need to find ways of picking up problems which may take years to manifest themselves."
Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey added: "The government is slowly waking up to the problem, but this testimony shows how far they have to go before we get close to dealing with this very serious issue."

Saudi Judge sentences Pregnant Rape Victim to prison and 100 lashes- as per Sharia law.

2009-02-11T07:48:00.000-08:00

Jeddah where the attack took place.

A terrible injustice. However what the Daily Mail does not report accurately is the fact that this sentence is 'just' according to Sharia law. In Sharia for a rape to be prosecuted the requirement is for four independent male witnesses. In the absence of those witnesses the victim as in this case can be punished for adultery. Remember this next time you hear from the Islamists talking about the desire for a Caliphate with Islamic law, should such an obscene system be imposed on Britain or anywhere else this is one example of what to expect. The majority of Islamists are surprise surprise young men, it is hardly surprising that they seek to implement a system that only benefits Islamic men. Under Sharia law, women (as in this case) and Non-Muslims are the losers. Perhaps one of the Islamists who occasionally visit this site would like to explain to me how the punishment of this woman in Saudi is against Islam? It is not and the Judge in Jeddah has correctly upheld the Islamic law concerning rape.

'A British Soldiers View of Operation Cast Lead'

2009-02-06T10:26:00.000-08:00

It is perhaps too early to fully judge the success or otherwise of Israel's recent operation against Hamas. It does appear though that the cease-fire has already been breached by Hamas with an IED attack that killed an Israeli soldier and further rockets being fired into Israel. It was perhaps always likely that Hamas would do exactly that. Although of course just as when Hamas launched thousands of rockets into Israel Bianca Jagger, Ken Livingstone and the usual crowd were of course quiet, note that the Israelis withdrew and suspended operations Hamas did not. I intend to write more on whether the Israeli response was proportionate but in the meanwhile here is a good article from the spectator. Full text follows:

A British soldier's view of Operation Cast Lead Daniel Yates 12:10pm
Many thanks to Daniel Yates for contributing this article to Coffee House. Daniel was a British soldier with the Intelligence Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is writing under a pseudonym. - Pete Hoskin

Having completed numerous combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I watched the television footage of Israeli soldiers deploying on Operation Cast Lead with a jolt of familiarity. I saw the emotions that I have felt in the past. I was eager to do my job properly, I had confidence in my abilities and those of my comrades, but I was also apprehensive. That apprehension was not just the fear of what harm may have come to me or my mates, but also the worry that my judgement would fail if I was called upon to make the snap decision to take another’s life. The pressure of these conflicting emotions coupled with the stress of battle is immense. The majority of us called upon to withstand them are young men, some as young as 18.
That is why the casual bandying around of terms like ‘war crimes’ so enraged me when I heard it directed at British soldiers during protest in London. I feel no different when it is levelled at Israeli soldiers. I accept that soldiers enjoy no immunity from the law and that our actions must be scrutinised but that judgement must be a measured weighing of factors, not a knee jerk emotive statement such as that made by Ban Ki-Moon nor a trial by media. I believe that I and other soldiers understand the stress, friction and confusion that combat brings in a way that media commentators and UN bureaucrats never can.
Urban warfare is complicated, disorientating and utterly confusing even in conventional operations. When an enemy, such as Hamas, is willing to dress in civilian clothing, attack from legally protected sites and use civilians as human shields it becomes fiendishly difficult.
The destruction of the UN School, cited by Ban Ki-Moon, is a case in point. The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) maintains that its soldiers came under fire from that position. They returned fire; that is what soldiers under contact do. It would appear that light artillery guns or mortars were used. These are emphatically not the ‘smart’ weapons that civilians fondly imagine all war to be fought with. It is commonplace fact of war that such munitions do not always land were they are supposed to.
The urban environment can seriously hinder even the most sophisticated of radio communications, leading to command and control becoming fractured. The assertion by the UN that they provided the IDF with the grid references of their locations is valid. However, it is a fact that often information is not always passed down the chain of command, this is more likely to occur due to the fog of war rather than any malicious intent.
The IDF have also faced accusations that they have attacked ambulances. Again, I cannot speak for the veracity of these claims nor do I seek to diminish the serious nature of such attacks. The British Army’s enemy in Iraq, Jaish Al Mahdi routinely used vehicles marked as ambulances to transport arms, ammunition and fighters around Basra. Like Hamas, Jaish Al Mahdi received training and equipment from Iran.
During the course of Israeli operations in Gaza the whole of the media seems to have become expert in the use of white phosphorous. Most commentators either do not know, or have refused to acknowledge, that the use of white phosphorous is not illegal. The Geneva conventions do restrict the use of white phosphorous in certain circumstances, but it is used almost daily by British forces in Afghanistan.
The IDF have stated that, during this operation, they fired a total of 200 shells containing phosphorous. 20 of these shells were fired in urban areas and the use of those 20 is being investigated in line with these restrictions.
White phosphorous is used because it provides an instant smokescreen, other munitions can provide a smokescreen but the effect is not instant. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire and wounded comrades, every commander would choose to screen his men instantly, to do otherwise would be negligent.
Much has been made of Israel’s ‘disproportionate and excessive’ use of force in Gaza. Footage of Gaza released today does show devastating damage to individual buildings, but this is no Stalingrad. A fact often unappreciated by those with no military experience is that the selective use of overwhelming force, aimed at key targets, actually shortens conflict and saves lives. In Basra in 2003 the USA and the UK chose to use extreme force against locations that had been fortified by the Ba’ath Party, in order to spare our troops and the people of Basra the horror of a drawn-out street battle. It appears that the IDF made the same choice in Gaza.
I do not argue that any soldier should be outside of the law, any army that allows such a thing is not worthy of the name. I do believe, however, that the least the world can do for young men returning from combat is to offer them the basic right to have their actions considered on the basis of events and the context in which they occurred.

PLEASE COMMENT BELOW FOLKS.

NATO General suggests member states could get supplies from Iran! Doh!

2009-02-03T08:36:00.000-08:00

John Craddock, his eye on the wider picture
or his head stuck up his Khyber Pass?

Okay now before people condemn this idea as being entirely devoid of common sense and the mutterings of a blimp like retard lets evaluate. Firstly the guy saying it is General John Craddock, a senior NATO general and thus hopefully at least no fool at all. Secondly there may be some merit in engaging Iran diplomatically over the resurgent Taleban insurgency. After all it is most likely that Tehran does not wish to see the Taleban back in Kabul. However that is about it, the Iranian theocracy will most certainly not want to see a NATO victory or democracy taking root now on two countries that border it (the other being Iraq).

Other problems are the fact that credible reports have been made that Iran is actually supplying Taleban elements with munitions. That is definitely a problem just as it proved and to an extent still does in Iraq. Most importantly this would hand Iran in effect full power to influence the outcome of NATO operations, operations to which they will almost certainly be opposed to. In other words NATO would go from being currently severely hampered to actually defeated in Afghanistan when the mullahs call off the supplies. Perhaps I'm missing something and the Iranians actually do want to help and not just swallow a load of dollars whilst being duplicitous (like Pakistan). Personally with my limited knowledge I would favour a supply route through the Caucasus, although again that would be with a political price. Anyway here is the article from AP.

Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs Snags Interview of the Century: GEERT WILDERS

2009-01-28T07:28:00.001-08:00

Watch this clip and please comment as to what you think. BUT and this is critical in a democracy, let me know if you think the man saying this should actually be prosecuted for saying so. That’s right Wilders faces prosecution for saying this in The Netherlands. Of course you may disagree, you may even be offended however surely the man has a right to say so doesn’t he?

Oh and before the usual islamists come out with the crap that ‘as Abu Hamza was prosecuted so should this guy’. Bear in mind that Hamza actually called for people to be killed. Wilders is critical of an ideology and the imposition of it in Europe. If you like democracy he should be supported. The Dutch government should be ashamed of themselves for allowing such a politically driven prosecution.

See here for a sanitised BBC version of the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7842344.stm

Hamas MP Fathi Hamad brags about using Human Shields

2009-01-17T05:00:00.001-08:00

Let's be clear about this, Hamas are using Human Shields and as such the responsibility for civilian casualties in Gaza rests with them. It is an established legal position, which a hostage taker using a hostage for cover is liable for harm to that hostage should any occur as a result of police action. Indeed in the UK a criminal was convicted of murder when shots fired by the police missed the hostage taker and killed the hostage (I can't remember the name of the authority that determines this but it is a legal fact, Google it). The same situation arises in Gaza today when terrorists use the local population as cover to attack Israel. The Israelis have to respond to this to defend their own people and however much it is regrettable any civilian casualties are the fault of Hamas. In this video Hamad is on record as saying:

'For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry
In which excel the women and all the people of this land:

The older people excel, the jihadists excel

And the children excel

Consequently, [the Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children

Older people and jihadists

Against the Zionist bombing machine

That is telling the Zionist enemy

We want death just as much as you desire life.'

Now would Bianca Jagger or anyone else care to actually comment on this and follow the legal position on these activities by Hamas?

P.S Don't be surprised if a film such as this is removed by Hamas supporters from youtube in the near future.

A Rally for Hate and 'No were are not all Hamas now!'

2009-01-13T09:11:00.001-08:00

I thought I would add my tuppence worth to this sorry saga. Like most people I am dismayed by the ongoing violence in the Middle East. The Israeli cause is just (quite simply they are defending themselves) and yet overall the world's media is against them. This will not help matters, the history of the twentieth century shows that when the world's Jews feel the world is against them, they will simply leave it to themselves to defend themselves.

In this case many of the 'demonstrations' by the left in support of Hamas (or as they put it the Palestinians) are like looking back at the 1930's. Swastika's have been daubed on buildings, a Muslims woman has chanted 'get back to the Oven' to a crowd of Israeli supporters in Toronto and an Israeli flag was taken down to appease an 'Allah akbaring' crowd in Germany. This is not good at all, even Derek Wall of the Green Party a constant critic of Israeli policy has conceded here that many elements of the demonstration he attended were anti-Semitic. Although even that report was cross posted from another Blog Wall follows so the likelihood is that Derek does not mind the virulent anti-Semitism we are now seeing.

My points are as follows:

1. Israel has the right to defend itself from a campaign Hamas started.

2. Criticism of Israel is welcomed however blatant anti-Semitism is horrific.

3. The war will stop once Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist and stops the Jihad against it. or at least it should however doubtless the Israeli government will succumb to pressure to stop before reaching this laudable goal.

4. Claiming that Israel's response to a clear, existing threat that actually DID attack them is disproportionate is plain and utter silly. Where was the proportionality employed against Serbia in 1999 for just one instance?

Dominic Lawson in the Times out-lines a cogent argument that analyses the issues rationally here. For another illustration of the growing hate just look at the embedded video.

No, we are not all Hamas now Dominic Lawson I was startled by the monument that stands at the entrance to Yad Vashem, Jerusalem’s memorial to the Holocaust. One side of Nathan Rappaport’s diptych is what looks like a caricature of Jews. The hunched, twisted figures, with hooked noses and heavy-lidded eyes, seem devoid of physical energy. The other panel displays a group of heroic young men and women who are heavily muscled, standing tall, weapons at the ready. It turns out that the first group is meant to depict Jews being marched to their deaths, while the second is the leaders of the Warsaw uprising; the whole monument is constructed of granite imported from Sweden by the Nazis for the construction of what was meant to be one of the Third Reich’s victory towers. The message is in fact close to the view expressed with brutal clarity by Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion: “That masses of exiled Jews walked to the death trains . . . silently, stupidly . . . is a decisive, embarrassing and painful statement of the disintegration of spiritual-ethical strength. What is their place among us?” Ben-Gurion envisaged that “new Jews”, with the security of their own nation state, would erase what he saw as the shameful memory of a “submissive, lowly camp of strange creatures . . . who know only how to arouse pity”. Indeed, so anxious was Ben-Gurion to obliterate such memories that he opposed any memorial to the Holocaust. That was one battle he lost. A Briton entering Yad Vashem might do so in the hope that he would see a compliment to his own nation’s fight against the Nazis. He would be disappointed. Instead, there is footage of a long dead emissary to London recording how Britain’s wartime foreign secretary, Anthony Eden, told him the plight of the Jews was not an important consideration in the war effort. Later, he would see pictures of British soldiers dragging Jewish immigrants from ships on the shores of Tel Aviv and of Holocaust survivors behind the wire of British camps in Cyprus, prevented from reaching the promised land. The message here is equally clear. No one will protect the Jews except themselves. That remains the position. After all, there was no great perturbation within the UN building in New York during the month upon month that Hamas rained rockets on southern Israel, still less any international pressure on the government of Gaza to desist. Ten months ago I was in Sderot, 30 seconds’ rocket flying time from Gaza, talking to an Israeli nurse whose home had been hit by one of thousands of Qassam missiles which Hamas had fired without fear of reprisal. She still had shrapnel lodged, irremovably, near her brain.

The nurse said she constantly tells her four-year-old son, who was also injured, that “there are so many good people in Gaza who are not trying to kill us”. Her anger was principally against her own government: “The day Israel withdrew from Gaza, I knew it was a terrible idea, I knew we would be a target. And I know my Arab friends will suffer when the IDF [Israel Defence Force] goes back into Gaza.” Now, they are indeed suffering terribly, as the images on our television screens show all too graphically – and yet infinitely less than the pictures that are too horrific to be shown and are left to our imagination. This is what war means. All the same, even the majority of those Israelis who passionately believe that the Palestinians should have their own state, and that the West Bank should be handed over to them, are convinced there was no choice for their government but to act as it has over the past fortnight. These Israelis were bitterly opposed to the military campaigns against Lebanon, but see this campaign as much closer to the spirit of the six-day war and the Yom Kippur war. “Ein brera”, they tell me, which is Hebrew for “no choice”. It was no longer just Sderot which was taking hits from the Qassams, and where parents would not let their children play outdoors. The Iranian-supplied Hamas ordnance was becoming ever wider in its range. Ashkelon (which incidentally supplies all of Gaza’s electricity) and even the city of Beer-sheba are now reachable targets, and more than 800,000 Israelis the potential victims. It is undeniable that the consequences for the people of Gaza have been far worse, in numbers of innocent dead and in sheer intensity, than anything the people of Israel have suffered. The word “disproportionate” is inevitably used to describe the Israeli response, with the equally inevitable failure to acknowledge that Hamas targets civilians on purpose and with open expressions of bloodthirsty delight when it succeeds. Those who claim the IDF also deliberately targets civilians don’t have to believe the official spokesman’s denials: they could speak to someone such as Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British Army campaigns in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, and was most recently senior military adviser to the Cabinet Office. Kemp told me that “Hamas deploys suicide attackers including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives. Its leaders knew as a matter of certainty this would lead to civilian casualties if there was a ground battle. Virtually every aspect of its operations is illegal under international humanitarian law – ‘war crimes’ in the emotive language usually reserved for the Israelis”. Colonel Kemp points out that if the IDF had no regard for civilian lives it would never have leafleted and telephoned residents in Gaza, warning them when it was about to attack their area: after all, that also gives Hamas notice – hardly the act of an army devoted to military victory at all costs. Similarly, the IDF’s unilateral commitment to a daily three-hour ceasefire to permit the evacuation (to Israel) of casualties, and for the passage of “humanitarian aid”, also allows Hamas time to regroup and redeploy for future attacks. Of course, none of these arguments can penetrate the brains of the superannuated Stalinists, vicarious jihadists and attention-seeking actors and pop stars who think it’s cool to go on marches chanting, “We are all Hamas now”. Even if these luvvies might not be aware that on Christmas Eve Hamas legalised crucifixion as a punishment for those who “weaken the spirit of the people”, and have been shooting such political enemies in the head when they find them in hospitals conveniently injured by Israeli bombing raids, they still deserve to be dismissed as useful idiots for a depraved death cult. There are also perfectly sensible people – both inside and outside Israel – who say the IDF’s campaign is worse than a crime: it is stupid. They cite the Lebanon war of 2006 as a dire precedent. Leave aside the terrible casualties – although that’s hard enough – they say it left Hezbollah unconquered and elevated in prestige on the “Arab street”. Perhaps so, but consider this: since that campaign, no Hezbollah missiles have been fired on northern Israel. Indeed, when on Thursday three rockets were fired from Lebanon, Hezbollah rushed to reassure the Israeli government that it was not involved and that the rockets were not the sort it even possessed. This is not exactly the classical doctrine of deterrence: it’s supposed to stop people attacking you in the first place. Yet the Israeli attack on Gaza is part of the same policy of delayed deterrence. Paradoxical though this might seem, it is also essential if the process towards an independent Palestinian state is to havea future. For until the people of Israel believe that such a state – including the heights of the West Bank, which overlook Tel Aviv – is not a threat to their own existence, they will never support a government which abandons those territories, won in an earlier war of self-defence. If you believe otherwise, go to Yad Vashem.

Montreal Rally of Hate; Islamists, Trade Unionists and PQ M

2009-01-13T09:09:00.001-08:00

Happy Christmas! And a message from Iran...

2008-12-24T07:36:00.000-08:00

All the best lads (and lasses!).

Nutter giving Channel 4's message!

Firstly I would like to wish all readers a happy Christmas. Secondly I wish to send my regards to those serving in the 'sand pit' on behalf of HM Forces. Lastly and importantly I would like to wish a happy Christmas to some of the other bloggers who have commented on my blog and engaged in discussion. Those individuals including Todd, Jenny, Gabriel, Phil, William, Goat and of course as ever Mick Hall. As can be seen I have enjoyed my first year of blogging and have engaged across the political spectrum.

Now as Monty Python would say it's 'time for something completely different'. The Iranian theocrat Ahmadinejad is giving Channel four's alternate Christmas message this year. Doubtless that will please the Islamists and other Moonbat trolls who occasionally appear on these pages. From the BBC. I bet I know what he wants for Christmas! (or Eid). I'm off to check my Turkey is steeping in it's brine correctly, 'av a gud un and I'll see you all after the New Year.

Inspector Gadget on the Consequences of the Welfare State

2008-12-11T10:07:00.000-08:00

Note to the real 'working class'.

£400 a week tax free for doing nothing. Result? Carry on doing nothing.

I intend to cross post a few things in the future from Inspector Gadget. Gadget is a serving Police Inspector who highlights the stresses of serving as a front-line cop in today's society. A society where the control of the Police appears to have passed to the New Labour Islington classes. Every day he documents more and more PC restrictions and bureaucratic time wasting. To his bosses and the New Labour machine he must appear quite reactionary. To me his is a sane voice of common sense in a wilderness.

Gadget has expressed his thanks to Karen Matthews for demonstrating what is wrong with the Benefits class in this country. Few people can deny it the problem is we cannot really fix it, so we have to put up with people like this. I am entirely willing to accept that before the launch of the welfare state in 1945 that there were serious problems and desperate poverty in many areas. But the excessive and expensive state nannying has exacerbated rather than solved the problem. Furthermore what is the point in giving out hand out after hand out, all it leads to is a despondent lack of moral responsibility. For instance Matthew's and her entire clique/family. If I am wrong and my taxes should be given with abandon to such people then I welcome such a discussion and invite others to comment below.

Inspector Gadget is here: or

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/

Of course there are no terror training camps in Pakistan?

2008-12-09T13:53:00.000-08:00

Some of the graduates from such a camp who attacked Mumbai last month

Langin was held captive in Pakistan at a terror camp for months

I mean there can't be can there? What about the fact a Briton Sean Langin was held at one for several months here Langin describes his experiences to the NY Times. He describes hearing on a radio in captivity a Pakistani Government Minister their existence. Now this has led to the attack by another ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) sponsored attack against India as we Saw in Mumbai. What does the Pakistan government do? Nothing really they merely engage in further deception and denial. Zardari their foreign Minister has said Pakistan will defend themselves if attacked here. Never mind that India has a right to defend themselves having been the victims of state sponsored terrorism. Pakistan should close down the Lashkar-e-Taiba organisation, arrest those responsible and send them to India for trial. Anything else is just weasel words.
We have a desperate situation but the world should stand with India on this one, I have nothing more to say if others wish to comment do so below.

BBC with a Damning Indictment of the Welfare State! 'No one in our house works'

2008-12-02T04:39:00.000-08:00

I'm tremendously surprised by this as the BBC has published a piece that actually goes firmly against the grain of their liberal/left bias. I'm of the opinion that a 'safety net' to prevent people from starving is one thing. However an entire benefits culture that nanny's people from the cradle to the grave is another. The result an entire class of people devoid of pride, self worth and motivation. The shame is the family here do not seem to be unintelligent they are however lazy and Mrs Malcolm herself admits herself she is a drain on society. If she worked she could be a proud member of society instead of a sponging free loader. I need not comment further, people in the US who consider that Obama may introduce Socialism over there need only look here for one of it's consequences.

'No-one in our house works'
By Paula Dear BBC News

Javascript and Flash plug-in required

Either the Flash plugin was not detected on your computer or the JavaScript features of your brower have been disabled.
To enable Javascript on your browser we recommend that you contact your computer support line.
Click here to download the Flash plugin from the Macromedia website

With redundancies rising and job vacancies shrinking, unemployment is back in the headlines. But for millions it never went away. As part of a series on Britain's jobless, one family explains how and why lack of work has touched their lives.
Elizabeth Malcolm, 43, has never had a job. She lives in a two-bedroom council flat in Glasgow with her three children, one grandchild, two cats and a hamster.
Neither of her two working-age children have a job.
BRITAIN'S JOBLESS
Our series asks, who are Britain's jobless?
Read more about the issues - Britain's jobless: who cares? - here
Interviews with five people who are out of work will be published on the BBC News website in December and January
Week beginning 15 December - ask a government minister your questions about unemployment
Q&A: Who are the jobless?
Key statistics
The family is what the statistics gatherers call a "workless household" - one of three million in the country. In reality it's not quite so easy to put every jobless person into a neat little box. This is their story.
Elizabeth, known as "Biff" to family and friends, wishes now that she had got into work or college back in 1980, when she left school at 15.
It was hardly a great time to be a jobseeker, especially living in Easterhouse, a part of Glasgow long synonymous with deprivation and unemployment. But she concedes that she doesn't really know why she didn't get a job, and that there was an element of just "not getting round" to it.
She doesn't think school wanted her to stay on because she "wasn't too bright" and used to bunk off a lot.
Without any qualifications she assumed she wasn't able to follow her chosen path and join the Army. She never actually made it to the recruitment office to ask.
I did try, but nobody took me on
Elizabeth Malcolm
Send us your comments
After signing on the dole, she was nagged to find a job by her parents - who both worked until redundancy and illness stopped them in their 50s - and says she tried to find something.
"I did try, but nobody took me on," she says.
By 17 she had met the father of her three children and by 22 had their first son William. From then on family, home life and dealing with a failing relationship took over, she says.
While Elizabeth "feels angry" at herself for not getting into work when she was younger, at the same time she believes looking after the kids and the house has been a job in itself. Labour market survey figures for the last quarter showed more than two million women gave the same reason for not working.
Now a lone parent, she shares her bedroom with her son Jon, 13, daughter Danielle, 17, and Danielle's son Rhys, 11 months.

Next generation: More on William, Danielle and Jon
In pictures
William, 21, who served in the Army for three and a half years and went to Iraq and Afghanistan, sleeps in the small second bedroom.
The family survive on a combination of Income Support and Child Tax Credits, claimed by both Elizabeth and Danielle. Both also receive the universal Child Benefit for one child each. It all amounts to about £270 a week between the five of them.
As no one in the house is actively seeking work, they don't count as "unemployed" and none claims Jobseeker's Allowance.
Things will change for Elizabeth next year, when she will no longer be entitled to Income Support for being a lone parent. She is already being asked to attend interviews at the local job centre.
"They send for you every month to ask you why you're not working and if you've been looking for work. I've told them my situation, that I've been having panic attacks when I go out - which started after my dad died - and they've written it all down.

"They said I'd be better off if I was out working because Jon's at an age now where the money I'm getting will stop soon. I'd need to sign on [for unemployment benefit] again and I don't want that because I think I'm too old to sign on."
Elizabeth says she would most want to work in a caring job, with animals, children or elderly people, because she has looked after people all her life.
Jobcentre staff have told her if anything comes up they'll "send her a letter", she adds.
Having a job would help "keep her mind off things" that have happened, she says.
Although there's always been a degree of struggle to get by, the family recently went into a complete tailspin, says Elizabeth.
A catalogue of events have left her and William suffering from panic attacks, while Jon has "gone off the rails" and started truanting from school.
I'll just need to get it out of my head and start going places, or else I'm going to be stuck in the house for the rest of my life
William, 21
Elizabeth lost both her parents in the last four years, with her father's death hitting her and William particularly hard. After his grandfather fell ill William became depressed and left the Army.
"He was his granda's blue-eyed boy," says Elizabeth.
In 2006 the children's father, John Purcell, who was separated from Elizabeth but had been visiting the kids, was stabbed to death. Soon after, William was savagely attacked by local gang members and stabbed several times. After a second attack he stopped straying more than a few feet from the house, and started drinking more and more.
It's left William so afraid to go out, he can't sign on.
"I'll just need to get it out of my head and start going places, or else I'm going to be stuck in the house for the rest of my life," he says. "I can't keep living like this, living off my mum." I'd like to have my own house, and my own wee family... definitely."
'Downhill'
For the time being he plays uncle to Danielle's baby, Rhys.
With no dad on the scene, Danielle relies on help from the family. She says she hopes to learn to be a hairdresser or beautician.
"All my pals are looking for work as well. But it's not that easy to get a job straightaway, you've got to write out your CV and everything and then hand it in to places."
Day-to-day she spends her time going to the shops for her mum, collecting her money, or visiting friends who also have children.

Elizabeth - who is besotted with her cats - would like to work with animals
"Some days I'm just sitting in the house. That's what I do, morning til night, unless I go down to see my auntie or something. It's not really a life."
Elizabeth is aware there are some who would criticise her life. She would agree, she says, with those who say it is "terrible" that taxpayers should be in the position of paying for those without work.
"I'm sorry they have to pay tax money to me. If I could get a job... give me a job then and I'll work, and then they won't have to pay me."

A Different National Embarrassment

2008-12-01T08:07:00.000-08:00

I rarely blog about sport. But the article speaks for itself. At this rate I will have to start supporting football at which England are not too bad. What is wrong with our RUFC national side? Mind you at least the Welsh were not disappointed. From the BBC:

Autumn Tests 2008
8-29 November 2008
Wales v Aus
Wales quotes
Eng v NZ
Eng quotes
Photos
As it happened
whichTab();
England (3) 6Pens: Flood, Armitage
New Zealand (12) 32Tries: Muliaina 2, Nonu Con: Carter Pens: Carter 5
By Mark Orlovac

Conrad Smith and Richie McCaw (right) celebrate one of Mils Muliaina's tries
England were made to pay for their indiscipline as New Zealand comfortably secured a 'grand slam' of the home nations on their autumn tour.
The home side gave away a host of penalties and had four players sin-binned as they slumped to their third straight defeat at Twickenham.
New Zealand battled to a 12-3 lead but they cut loose after the break.
Full-back Mils Muliaina crossed twice in the right-hand corner while Ma'a Nonu added another as England tired.
The defeat completes a chastening autumn series for new England manager Martin Johnson, who has seen his side lose to Australia, South Africa and now New Zealand in successive weeks.
For New Zealand, the result completes their third "grand slam" to add to their successes in 1978 and 2005, and incredibly they end their tour without conceding a single try in their Test victories over Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England this month.
Although England's display on Saturday was much improved from last week's record home defeat against South Africa, Johnson will be angry with the number of penalties his side conceded against the All Blacks - 15 in total.
The indiscipline negated any momentum England built as they took the game to New Zealand, while gifting the visitors easy points.
It also led to hooker Lee Mears, flanker James Haskell, fly-half Toby Flood and replacement open-side Tom Rees all being sin-binned.
606: DEBATE
New Zealand thoroughly deserved their win, but England can only have themselves to blame for their indiscipline yet again
no12will
And the margin of defeat could have been even greater had New Zealand fly-half Dan Carter not missed five kicks at goal.
After an incident-free All Blacks haka, the first half was a scrappy affair with England hassling their revered opponents while New Zealand struggled to find their rhythm.
And the early signs were good for the home side with recalled London Irish lock Nick Kennedy pressurising the All Blacks line-out while the English defensive line were keeping the dangerous New Zealand attack in check by denying them quick ball.
But it was the penalty count that cost England dear in the opening period, with Johnson's men conceding 10 penalties before the break.
Flood, who replaced Danny Cipriani in one of three changes to the starting line-up, had the first chance to put points on the board but his fifth-minute penalty drifted wide.
Carter put his side ahead in the 15th minute after scrum-half Danny Care cynically kicked the ball away from a ruck although England levelled the scores two minutes later through Flood when Tony Woodcock collapsed a scrum.
Mears was the first to be sin-binned after he was caught with his hands in the ruck to slow down a New Zealand attack, but Carter missed his attempt.

Flood saw yellow for this challenge on Cowan in the second halfCarter did make the score 6-3 when Care went over the top of a ruck but he was wasteful again after Haskell saw yellow for a swinging arm to the head of Rodney So'oialo on 32 minutes.
Two more penalties at the end of the half were slotted over by Carter but it did not seem to affect the home side as they made a superb start to the second period.
Full-back Delon Armitage caught the restart and released number eight Nick Easter but the Harlequins forward was tapped by Carter just metres from the line.
Flood was the next to be sin-binned after being harshly penalised for a high tackle on Jimmy Cowan as the scrum-half broke from deep.
Armitage was given the kicking duties and he reduced the deficit to six points with a well-taken penalty but that was the last moment of joy for the home side.
New Zealand took control of the game when England were pushed off a scrum deep in their own half, the ball was spread wide quickly and Muliaina dived over in the corner.
Carter added another penalty on 62 minutes before Muliaina scored in the same corner after collecting a cheeky kick from his fly-half.
England's battling forwards were tiring by the minute and the All Blacks took full advantage, Nonu running in from halfway after a break and neat offload from hooker Keven Mealamu.
The game ended with Rees yellow-carded for another breakdown infringement but it did not matter - the game was over - and it leaves Johnson with plenty to think about ahead of the Six Nations.
England: Armitage; Sackey, Noon, Flutey, Monye; Flood, Care; Payne, Mears, Vickery, Borthwick, Kennedy, Haskell, Lipman, Easter.Replacements: Hipkiss for Sackey (73), Cipriani for Noon (75), Ellis for Care (60), Hartley for Mears (67), Stevens for Vickery (53), Rees for Lipman (58), Croft for Easter (67).
Sin Bin: Mears (24), Haskell (32), Flood (43), Rees (76).
New Zealand: Muliaina; Rokocoko, Smith, Nonu, Sivivatu; Carter, Cowan; Woodcock, Mealamu, Tialata, Thorn, Williams, Kaino, McCaw, So'oialo.Replacements: Toeava for Smith (69), Weepu for Cowan (70), Afoa for Tialata (56), Reid for Kaino (56).
Not Used: Elliot, Boric, Donald.
Att: 81,180
Referee: Alain Rolland (Ireland)

How the BBC Reports on and Frames the Debate around Islamic Terrorism

2008-11-29T10:49:00.000-08:00

Right well I have not blogged on the carnage in Mumbai as the situation is being extensively covered elsewhere. However here are the facts that the MSM including the BBC have not mentioned Re 27 November in Mumbai.

1. A series of attacks aimed completely indiscriminately at Western and Hindu citizens.
2. The targets included hotels, restaurants and a Jewish centre.
3. The perpetrators were Islamic Jihadis, which other group would kill Jews because they are Jews? Or ask people whether they are British or American before killing them and taking them hostage.

Okay so the problem is? Well all Al Beeb will call these people who are Muslims killing in the name of Islam is 'militants'. There is no discussion at all of the ideology (Islam) that motivated them and continues to do so.

That is until today 29th November. In a further example of the BBC's bias 'Any Questions' hosted a discussion where Mumbai was discussed. The panel was as is always the case with Question time composed predominately with people from the left. Indeed Caroline Lucas dribbled during and overwhelmingly (Dimbleby did not contradict her or allow an opposing viewpoint) blamed the situation on Israel and actions taken by the west.
The panel comprised of:

1. Caroline Lucas Green party (hard left).

2. Geoff Hoon Labour party (left).

3. Vince Cable Liberal Democrats (left).

4. David Willetts Conservative (centre-right).

So that is what you pay your licence fee for a panel that is 75% left wing and includes the hard left. Where is the balance and impartiality in that. Why in their reporting of an act of Jihadi terrorism will the BBC not accurately tell people who actually conducted the attack and why?

A story with a happy ending from Iraq

2008-11-25T11:58:00.000-08:00

'Bishop' with General Petraeus (center) and LTC Crider (right)

I found this story on Michael Yon's excellent website. Yon has travelled to and reported on the situations in Iraq/Afghanistan. His dispatches which he occasionally undergoes significant risk to produce are nothing short of marvellous and the man possesses a wonderful depth of humanity. This is a at times harrowing and yet uplifting story of hope over adversity, the story of 'Bishop'. Sadly many others had a more tragic ending. The full text below:

Between 2007 and 2008, I got to know a man in South Baghdad whose codename was “Bishop.” This is the short story of his life.His parents were Kurdish Sunnis. They moved to Baghdad 34 years ago – recently married and excited to make a new life for themselves and create a family. Bishop’s real name was Bashar Akram Ameen; the name given to him when he was born on October 6, 1978 in the Abu Ghraib apartments in Baghdad. Bashar had three sisters and one brother. His schooling included graduating from a Baghdad high school in the class of ’96 and attending the Agriculture College of Baghdad University from 1997 until 2002 when he graduated. America had just set its sights on toppling Saddam. Shortly after graduating, Bashar began service in the Iraqi Army Reserve, but that lasted only three months, because the U.S. crushed a great part of the Iraqi Army and then officially dissolved the rest. For three months, Bashar was one of those unemployed young men we worried about. He got a job in October of 2003 as a bodyguard for an Iraqi judge. His first job didn’t last long because insurgents assassinated the judge. Feeling lost and a bit frightened, Bashar decided to look for a “safer” job, and began interpreting for, as he called it, “the Sally Port Security Company” in al-Mansour, Baghdad. Insurgents in his neighborhood figured out that he was working for an American company, and on February 21, 2006, as he left his job at 6:00 pm, they started shooting at him in his car, “…but I miraculously survived,” Bashar explained to me, “and that was the reason to leave my job at that company.”His own safety, and therefore that of his loved ones, was in jeopardy, and so, as Bashar recalled, “I quit visiting my family for over four months.” Though he had used caution, his family was forced to flee in order to avoid imminent suffering or death from the insurgents. Bashar explained, “They had killed our neighbor’s son, so their father gave the key of his house to my father to keep the house safe until maybe the situation getting better. Then, on the next day, the same killers of our neighbors came to my father and asked him about the key, so he refused to give it away and he said that he don’t have it and he don’t know anything about it.” The insurgents warned Bashar’s father that they would check the validity of his information, and if it was untrue, “they will teach my father and us a lesson.” His family, doing what they must to survive, reluctantly left their home. Bashar wrote to me, “My father packed some basic stuff and moved from our own house in Ameriya, Baghdad; Iraq.”By now, the civil war was raging in Baghdad. Not everything was so bleak. Even at the height of the civil war, life went on. Bashar met a woman named Alyaa, who worked in legal administration at the “Sally Port Security Company.” They courted for a year, and got married on September 14, 2006 – all the while, sectarian violence raged around Iraq. A year later their first son, Mustafa, was born. Around that time, however, the local Shia militia (called Jaish al-Mahdi, or JAM) figured out that Bashar, who is Sunni, had worked for the Americans at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon (where he got the codename “Bishop”). “They began coming around to bother my wife while I was at work,” he recalls. “So we moved again to live in al-Mansour, Baghdad. And since then, I stopped making any type of relationships with the neighbors just because you can’t trust anybody. In al-Mansour, we had very quiet time….” And so Bashar began working for the American Army as an interpreter, for various units, at the time of peak fighting. I first met Bishop when he worked for 1-4 Cav in South Baghdad. The 1-4 Cav soldiers kept Bishop busy, working him hard, and he became one of the team. As the months rolled by and I came back to 1-4 on several occasions, their area had become quieter and quieter until, really, there was nothing going on except progress. The younger infantrymen were proud of the progress, but wanted to get up to Mosul or out to Afghanistan, where the fighting was. But not Bishop. He’d seen the worst of it and did not want to see any more war. He was old beyond his years and wanted peace.

Bishop with General Petraeus (center) and LTC Crider (right)
The two most dangerous jobs for Iraqis were probably journalist and interpreter. Bishop wanted to come to the United States. As a result, 1-4 Cav Commander, LTC James Crider, and some of the soldiers Bishop had worked with helped with the paperwork. Just a small aside: LTC Crider and his battalion were serious contributors to success in Iraq. I got e-mails from LTC Crider about his struggles with Iraqi bureaucracy on behalf of Bishop, even after he went home to America. I’d seen this LTC Crider go to bat for Iraqis over and over again in Iraq. In just one example, Crider and his staff waded for months through the Iraqi legal labyrinth to try to free a man who had been wrongfully detained for a bombing he could not have committed; the bombing had never occurred. Crider and his battalion were welcome fixtures in that neighborhood, because he and his men had brought peace and serenity to a place that had previously been one of the most perilous places in Iraq. The last time I was there, I walked around with no body armor or helmet, and bought popcorn on the street. (I was just there again on about November 15; the progress continues without violence.)I heard that many Iraqis cried when 1-4 redeployed to America. One captain had even been offered a home if he would come back to live in the neighborhood. The captain knew how to get things done, while still making the time to learn the names of every kid there. And he knew their mothers and fathers, too. But that was it; 1-4 went home and Bishop was left behind, with his family scattered by the war. His father died in July 2007, his mother and two sisters still live in Baghdad, his brother in Kirkuk, and another sister in Syria. LTC Crider and others struggled…and struggled…and finally succeeded. On November 6, 2008, Bishop emigrated to America, landing in [Nashville], Tennessee along with his wife, Alyaa (who is carrying their second child), and their son, Mustafa. And the amazing 1-4 Cav keeps winning battles, without firing a shot, long after leaving the war.So now, Bashar is no longer “Bishop,” and he has begun an American life, with the many ups and downs we all have to face. His next fight is to find a job in our troubled economy and overcome a high-voltage dose of culture shock. He will come to understand that our culture is just as complicated as the one he left behind – but without the violence, threats and scars of war.Many people have welcomed him to America. I think Bashar can be of particular value to America at this time, simply by getting on the radio stations and talking to reporters and telling his story – the story of Iraq – and showing people how it really is over here. (I write this from Iraq.) Perhaps he can explain why many of us think that it was all worth it. I asked Bashar if I could publish his e-mail address, and he agreed.This is not just a happy ending, but a happy beginning. Please welcome this new family to America and pass this story to your local papers and radio stations. Ask them to talk with a real Iraqi who just got here. People need to know what happened in Iraq. Bashar can be reached at:
'bash.amen@yahoo.com

Who likes freedom of Speech? Not these guys, OIC Seeking to outlaw criticism of Islam at UN...

2008-11-23T08:00:00.000-08:00

These guys are pleased at the OIC proposals.

From the WEA the Organisation of Islamic Conferences (a multi national Islamic bloc vote at the UN), attempts are being made to outlaw defamation of Islam. Why does this matter? Well for one thing it's an earnest attempt to introduce aspects of Sharia law. Furthermore it would give legal sanction to attempts to stifle criticism of Islam and the problems we face as a consequence of political Islam. Furthermore we should be free to state and honestly discuss all areas concerning religions. By that I mean for instance:

1. In parts of the Islamic world sexual abuse of children is institutionalised by marriage. This follows the example of Muhammad who 'married' a six year old girl whilst he was 54. (according to Hadith).

2. Islam's scriptures mandate warfare against 'non believers' including Jews and Christians until they submit to Islam, (Qur'an 9,29).

3. Islam suppresses women and condones violence against them if they are disobedient. (Qur'an 4, 34).

Now why not have frank and honest discussions about the above? Not according to the OIC you should not.

The WEA article:

The OIC & the UN: Islamophobia and "defamation of religion"
Nov 15, 2008
By: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth KendalTHE OIC & THE UN: ISLAMOPHOBIA AND "DEFAMATION OF RELIGION"(OIC: Organisation of Islamic Conference)Durban I -- the UN's first World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance -- which was held in Durban, South Africa, in early September 2001 ended with a walkout over its virulent anti-Semitism. Yet sadly it now seems clear that the Durban Review Conference (or Durban II), which will be held in Geneva in April 2009, is shaping up to be even worse.As a prelude to Durban II, a Second Preparatory Session of the 20-state Preparatory Committee -- of which Libya has been elected chair with Cuba, Pakistan and Iran as vice-chairs -- was held in Geneva from 6 to 17 October 2008. The resulting "Draft Outcome Document for the Durban Review Conference 2009" is now available on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) website at LINK 1.It is clear from the draft document, as well as from reports emanating from the subsequent 63rd UN General Assembly meeting held in Geneva during the first week of November, that a central focus of Durban II will be "Islamophobia", which is being presented as "a new form of racism".Muslims, the draft declaration asserts, are at dire risk of a racial "holocaust" due to "a new form of racism" -- "Islamophobia" -- which is incited through "defamation of Islam".The draft declaration recommends that local, national and international laws and human rights covenants be reviewed and amended as necessary so that "defamation of Islam" is made a criminal offence, losing the protection it has long enjoyed under the "pretext" of "freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security". It recommends that legal instruments be established to punish offenders -- that is, those who "defame" Islam by associating it with violence, human rights abuses or terrorism.Anne Bayefsky, a York University professor and human rights lawyer who attended the Second Preparatory Session in Geneva, warns: "This is the new dimension of Durban 2, which in many ways makes it a greater threat than Durban 1. It's really setting up a war of ideas, that has rough implications, between Islamic states and everybody else. . . . Durban 1 was called an assault on Israel; a demonisation of Israel as racist and analogous to Apartheid South Africa. But in addition, Durban 2 is an assault on freedom of expression and other essential democratic rights and freedoms." (Link 2)---------------------------------The draft declaration has built on the 17 August 2007 report by Mr Doudou Diene, the then UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and the OIC's Observatory of Islamophobia.For background see:UN Human Rights Council: Watershed days. 18 Sept 2007WEA RLC News & Analysis by Elizabeth Kendalhttp://www.worldevangelicals.org/commissions/rlc/reports/articles.htm?id=1411 (This posting gives a thorough critique of Doudou Diene's August 2007 report and considers its implications in terms of the Islamisation of international human rights.)ANDOIC: Eliminating "defamation" of Islam. 25 March 2008WEA RLC News & Analysis by Elizabeth Kendalhttp://www.worldevangelicals.org/commissions/rlc/reports/articles.htm?id=1725 (This posting analyses the OIC's Observatory of Islamophobia which was launched at the OIC Dakar Summit in March 2008. The Observatory of Islamophobia, which is built on Doudou Diene's August 2007 report to the UNHRC, must be seen in the context of the OIC's "Ten Year Program of Action" through which it aims to address the most "prominent challenges facing the Muslim world today". This posting also presents scenarios and means through which the OIC might fulfill its goal of establishing international instruments to punish -- under the pretext of peace and human rights -- those whom they charge with inciting Islamophobia through "defamation" of Islam.)----------------------------------------Canada and Israel have already pulled out of Durban II while several other Western states have threatened to boycott -- most notably Denmark. As reported by Jette Elbaek Maressa in Jyllands-Posten (28 Oct 2008), Danish foreign minister Per Stig Moller told his Arab partners during a round trip to the Middle East that if the Organisation of Islamic Conference did not withdraw its proposal to make criticism of religion equivalent to racism, then Western countries will stay away from Durban II. "If the OIC pushes through this draft resolution, they shall not expect European or Western countries to be present at the table," he said. (Link 3)The Non-Government Organisation "UN Watch" has released a paper on the Durban II Draft Declaration. Entitled "Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft Declaration", it examines a "small selection of the 646 provisions of the Durban II draft declaration, highlighting several that breach the EU's red lines" (i.e. the lines the EU determined should not be crossed).In its opening summary, UN Watch charges that the draft declaration seeks "to distort human rights laws for the purposes of Islamic censorship" by "inserting a prohibition against 'defamation of religion' designed to restrict free speech and impose the censorship of Islamic anti-blasphemy laws".UN Watch's paper provides a clear, thorough and yet concise overview and analysis of the most contentious elements of the Durban II draft declaration. It is recommended reading. (Link 4)63rd UN GENERAL ASSEMBLYReliefweb has published a report on the 63rd General Assembly that was held in Geneva subsequent to the Durban Review Conference Second Preparatory Session. LINK 5The report describes representatives from Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Pakistan all expressing great concern over the threat posed by this "new form of racism" -- Islamophobia -- which is incited by "defamation of religion". According to the Libyan representative, freedom of speech is not the issue -- at issue is the "misuse" of that right.The representative from Iran told the assembly that modern-day racism is no longer based on supposed inequality between races, but is based on culture, nationality or religion. He claimed that xenophobic acts against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers; defamation of religions; religious intolerance and racial profiling are all expressions of this new form of racism which seeks legitimacy and protection under various pretexts such as combating terrorism.According to the representative from Saudi Arabia, Islam rejects all forms of discrimination and so in Saudi Arabia there are legal provisions to protect all the rights of all persons regardless of race, religion, status or gender.Various free, multi-racial Western democracies (a minority in the UN) denounced racism while making strong and clear defences of human rights including religious liberty and freedom of expression.The representative from France (speaking on behalf of the European Union [EU]) reminded the assembly that the EU had supported the organisation of a Review Conference as long as certain conditions were met and certain lines not crossed. He said that the primary goal should be the full implementation of existing normative framework and that new norms should only be drawn up if they were deemed necessary, were subject to a broad consensus and did not go back on universal achievements by restricting the current scope of human rights.He expressed the European Union's concern that the "thought process" on the possible creation of complementary norms was moving in a direction that could reduce the level of human rights promotion and protection. According to Reliefweb, the representative from France said the EU would "not allow the United Nations principles to be undermined" and would work in accordance with the principles that had been set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He said the Review Conference should concentrate on the implementation of the existing framework without restricting any human rights, establishing any hierarchy among victims, or excluding any one group. As well, the review conference should show how promoting human rights, especially the freedom of speech, could play an important role in fighting racism.The representative from the USA expressed concern at the trend of conflating issues of racism and religion which he said were two distinct issues. He likewise asserted that the cure for intolerance is more dialogue, not less.The representative from Israel regretted that alliances had trumped ideals and warned that nations with a genuine desire to promote peace should guard against the co-opting of legitimate language and ideas by racist demagogues. He expressed concern that Durban II risked becoming itself a platform of racial incitement, and he feared that words might quickly turn to actions.--------------------------The OIC formulated its Ten Year Program of Action (TYPOA) in Makkah in December 2005. Item VI on the TYPOA is "Combating Islamophobia". The OIC determined to do this by means of: 1) establishing an Observatory on Islamophobia tasked with monitoring Islamophobia and "defamation" of Islam and issuing annual reports; 2) getting the UN to adopt an international resolution on Islamophobia, and call on all States to enact laws to counter it; and 3) establishing international legal instruments to enforce anti-defamation laws and deliver deterrent punishments to those charged with inciting Islamophobia through defamation of Islam.The Observatory of Islamophobia was launched in Dakar in March 2008 and the UN has been passing resolutions against Islamophobia and "defamation" of religion ever since the OIC and Arab League-incited Cartoon Intifada of February 2006. All that is left on the OIC's agenda for combating Islamophobia is the legitimisation and implementation of national and international laws and legal instruments to punish offenders. It looks like Durban II might be a step in this direction.By E N KendalLinks1) Draft Outcome Document for the Durban Review Conference 2009http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/DurbanReview/session2-documentation.htm2) Durban 2: New site, same debacle.Kevin Libin, National Post (Canada) 25 October 2008http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=9070043) Danish foreign minister threatens Western boycott of Durban IIJyllands-Posten 28 Oct 2008By Jette Elbaek Maressahttp://europenews.dk/en/node/154734) Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft DeclarationSelected provisions of United Nations draft published at Second Preparatory SessionBy UN WATCH http://www.unwatch.org/ (Oct. 2008).5) Strengthening respect for human rights key for preventing conflict, stabilizing post-conflict situations, Third Committee told.GA/SHC/3933Sixty-third General AssemblyThird Committee33rd & 34th Meeting (AM & PM)Hears from Special Rapporteur on Racism, Chair of Mercenaries Working Group; Religious Defamation, Progress towards Durban Review Conference among Issueshttp://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/SHIG-7L3D9X?OpenDocument

A Pompous Ass on his travels

2008-11-15T11:32:00.000-08:00

Stephen Fry presents his series on America during Sunday evenings on BBC1. I am in spite of Fry's commentary really enjoying watching this on Sunday nights on BBC1. Basically Fry travels America and meets people and goes to interesting places across America. I have one criticism, the supercilious nonsense that Fry continually comes out with. This is in keeping of course with the BBC's and Fry's anti-American prejudices. For instance he makes off hand comments when he meets a group of sophisticated Americans here. He says supposedly to himself 'if only their foreign policy was as sophisticated'. This seemingly innocuous piece of arrogance is off course recorded and broad casted. I do not mind off course except it would be great if someone would mention to Fry 'How is British foreign policy more sophisticated'. Of course the BBC love this sort of cheap politicking.

Later in Montana Fry is eating at a German American diner. His hosts like most Americans are of course friendly and indulge their guest. That does not stop fry making plain stupid comments along the lines of 'Invading Poland' etc. Such comments are of course jocular but where is the fun in such a stupid comment that demeans Fry. Again if this programme was actually meant to inform the viewing public about America it would have been fair to point out the unqualified support German Americans such as these gave in world war one/two to the allied cause. It is a fact of history that the last US soldier killed in 1918 was a German American Private Gunther. As for world war two names such as Eisenhower and Nimitz spring to mind. Of course Fry for ever the conceited buffoon he is never mentions this.

I feel this is a shame as generally people in the UK do not understand America. This series with Fry hosting it in such a stuffy and condescending manner represents a missed opportunity to actually tell a great story.

We will remember them

2008-11-11T15:26:00.000-08:00

Today is the 11th November 2008. The first world war ended 90 years ago on this day. Three Gentlemen with a combined age of 330 laid wreaths at the cenotaph to commemorate. They were veterans of that conflict. From the Telegraph:

Great War veterans applauded on 90th anniversary
Three of the last four survivors of the Great War, with a combined age of 330, joined forces at The Cenotaph to mark the exact moment when the guns fell silent.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent Last Updated: 6:47PM GMT 11 Nov 2008
; http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid1913313243 http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1139053637

The remarkable trio, the last historic focus for the commemoration, was led by Henry Allingham, Britain's oldest man at 112, an aircraft mechanic who saw action at sea, in the Battle of Jutland, and ashore on the Western Front.
Then there was Harry Patch, 110, a veteran of the horrors of Passchendaele, who is the only survivor of the trenches and Bill Stone, a relative junior at the age of 108, who ended up fighting two World Wars for the Royal Navy. Their faces a living memorial to the First World War, their presence a warning that the sacrifice of their colleagues they left behind should never be forgotten.
As a mark of respect the three men, covered in blankets in their wheelchairs to protect them from the biting wind, were accompanied by some of the most highly decorated serving personnel from the three Services.
L/Cpl Johnson Beharry, VC, helped lay the wreath for Mr Patch, who was injured in the bloody 1917 battle of Passchendaele. Mr Stone, the youngest veteran, was accompanied by Marine Mkhuseli Jones, MC. But it was down to the first female wearer of the Distinguished Flying Cross, Flt Lt Michelle Goodman, to help Mr Allingham place his memorial.
For four minutes Mr Patch struggled to rise out of his wheelchair watched by a silent group of onlookers that included the Prime Minister Gordon Brown and chiefs of the Armed Forces.
At one moment it appeared he had beaten the clock but he managed to rise only a few inches out of his chair.
As Big Ben struck at the 11th hour, of the 11th month, Mr Allingham was still fighting to place his own tribute to his fallen comrades. "Everyone was willing him to stand," said Alexandra Coode, a schoolteacher who was a few feet away. "But he just could not get up so he kissed the wreath to say goodbye. But he showed the spirit that got these men through the war."
The wreath was finally laid at his feet as the Royal Marine buglers sounded the Last Post followed by two minute's silence. Mr Allingham said: "I hope people realise what my pals sacrificed on their behalf. "May they never be forgotten. I can't describe what they mean to me."
The Right Reverend David Conner, Bishop to the Forces told the crowd of 5,000, that including more than 500 servicemen, to remember the price paid "by far too many people" in conflicts since the Great War.
In reference to Iraq and Afghanistan he added: "We shall most certainly not forget those who even at this very minute face danger as they try to make their contribution to the building of a safer future for our all too troubled world.
The ceremony complemented the commemorations that also took place on the site of the Battle of Verdun, France, attended by President Sarkozy, accompanied by his wife Carla Bruni, and the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.
An estimated 20 million people were killed in the 1914-1918 war including 760,000 from Britain and the Commonwealth.
The Cenotaph service will almost certainly be the last significant anniversary that any of those who fought in the First World War will mark.
Of the five million men and women who served in the Armed Forces in the war, only four are still alive, including Claude Choules, 107, who lives in Australia.
After the ceremony Mr Patch, said: "It is important to remember the dead from both sides of the conflict. Irrespective of the uniforms we wore, we were all victims."

The second image is of the Commando memorial at Spean Bridge, Scotland. This is a desolate yet beautiful area and it is here that Allied Commandos underwent training during world war two. The US Rangers also underwent training there. It is a beautiful site worth a visit. What makes it particularly poignant are the nearby tributes to modern Commandos lost in Iraq/Afghanistan as well as local Scottish soldiers. I would like to dedicated this simple and unargumentative post to all those who served and have made the sacrifice. As well as those still serving along with their families.