Saturday, 31 December 2011

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

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

Monday, 26 December 2011

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

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.

Thursday, 22 December 2011

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

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

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.

Thursday, 6 October 2011

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

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. 

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

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

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!

Sunday, 28 August 2011

RIP John McAleese

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.

Thursday, 18 August 2011

Last Week's riots were a failure of big Government

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.

Thursday, 4 August 2011

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

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.

Saturday, 2 April 2011

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

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."

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

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

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.

Monday, 10 January 2011

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

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!