► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘UK’ Category

The Religion Of Peace Strikes Again In Iraq

by Flyovercountry ( 233 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, British Islamic Jihadists, Iraq, Islam, Islamists, Syria at August 12th, 2014 - 9:00 am

In almost every forum on the web, the battle rages on, as it has since chat rooms and the quicker web based forums have existed, is Islam a religion of peace, or a religion of blood lust and savagery? Somehow, tiny Israel, no matter what the circumstance, has found herself dragged, (often times by the most tenuous examples of logical gymnastics,) into the debate. An example of this is the argument which states that the only reason why Muslims ever commit any acts of savagery, which is not inherent to their religion by the way, is because Israel exists.

Make no mistake about where I am coming from. I am solidly in the latter camp. I find it astounding that some people fail to make that obvious connection between Islam, and the acts committed by the people who practice that faith. Now it is true that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, and members of every other belief cast known to man have occasionally run afoul of the law, or even the common rules of courteous behavior. That however is a far cry from what we see on a daily basis coming from the members of the Religion of Peace. It is also true that sometimes, people without economic means have also found themselves on the wrong side of the rules promoting civility most societies place on themselves. I don’t recall this picture, nor one even close to it, having come from South Central LA, Harlem, South Philadelphia, East Detroit, West Chicago, Columbus’ Central Point, East Cleveland, Washington D.C., or any other American urban nightmare.

A Christian girl beheaded by ISIS terrorists. There is no doubt that we face genocide.

That ladies and gentleman is the body of an elementary aged child who was killed in the latest Jihad Islam has waged upon civilized society. She was not accidentally caught up in a group of buildings that were carpet bombed, nor in a singular building that was bombed. She was not inadvertently hit by cross fire, a victim of being too close to a battle that she was unable to escape. She survived those unfortunate examples of grown ups being unable to get along. She instead was grabbed by a grown adult male, or perhaps a group of them, held down by at least one, and had her head cut off by a man with a scimitar who chanted “Allahu Akbar.” The entire group of savage miscreants were men who belonged to the militarized death cult Known as Islam, and further, felt that their religious texts not only condone this behavior, but in fact command it. ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Take a good look at that picture, and then consider this. The hipsters on the political left are glorifying ISIS. They are calling them freedom fighters, selling and wearing t-shirts like they’d done with Che Guevara, and more importantly, are equating the deeds of these animals with Israel’s legitimate attempts to evacuate citizens in Gaza before each and every strike designed to defend herself and her children.

I don’t want to get into the debate as to whether President Obama’s current actions, ostensibly designed to deal with ISIS have been effective. Indeed my guess is that an argument can most certainly be made as to the efficacy of the recent bombing campaign loosed by the Pentagon. I’ve read reports this morning already that the Kurds have managed to retake some of the previously captured cities over run by ISIS. That’s most definitely a positive sign if true. What I will point out however is that the entire formation and subsequent anschluss by ISIS is most certainly the direct and inevitable result of President Obama’s dalliance in foreign policy, his consistent dithering, and more importantly, his complete blind and incurious eye when it comes to dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The war in Iraq had been won, and Barack Obama endeavored to lose it after the fact. He failed to achieve the rather mundane and previously considered to be automatic task of affixing his name to a Status of Forces Agreement, one that had already been drawn up and agreed to by the way by Iraq’s elected leadership. That must be what they call diplomatic smart power. Evil loves a vacuum, and the Obama foreign policy, complete with that Mattel constructed reset button has certainly left plenty of those around. As a matter of fact, that was the entire crux of the Bamster’s foreign agenda, projecting American Weakness where ever the world needed our strength. This is what happens when you throw allies under the buss and embolden enemies with praise and foreign aid. The world, most especially that part of it which resides in the Middle East, noticed that Barack Obama ordered our military to fight along side of the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Al Qaeda, in Libya, Egypt, and in Syria. Maybe ISIS was the unexpected surprise that our Ditherer in Chief never really counted on. That does nothing to change the fact however that if it weren’t them, it would simply have been someone else. As I pointed out, evil loves a vacuum, and Barack Obama is hell bent upon creating them.

I’ll leave you with two links to the handy work of our Man Child President and his feckless foreign policy. We’ll have some more good news on this front tomorrow, in the mean time, enjoy! Elections have consequences.

click here for some good news.

click here for some more good news.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Vice News: Rise of the Islamic State Parts I and 2

by Rodan ( 21 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Albania, Bosnia, British Islamic Jihadists, Chechnya, Iraq, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Jihad, Kosovo, Sharia (Islamic Law), Special Report, Syria, Terrorism at August 8th, 2014 - 7:47 pm

Vice News was able to embed a reporter with ISIS and record this documentary.

Part 1

Part 2

ISIS continues its march

by Rodan ( 267 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, British Islamic Jihadists, Chechnya, Gaza, Hezballah, IDF, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, NIGERIA, Syria at August 4th, 2014 - 10:02 am

ISIS continues to expand its reach in the Middle East. In Iraq they seized a major dam and several villages from Kurdish forces. In Lebanon ISIS along with their rival Nusra Font have combined to seize territory in Lebanon centered around the town of Arsal. They are now clashing with the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah.

ISLAMIC State (Isis) fighters have seized control of Iraq’s biggest dam, an oilfield and three more towns after inflicting their first major defeat on Kurdish forces since sweeping through the region in June.

Capture of the Mosul Dam after an offensive of barely 24 hours could give the Sunni militants the ability to flood major Iraqi cities, sharply raising the stakes in their bid to topple Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s Shi’ite-led government.

[....]

sis fighters have also been involved in violent exchanges with Lebanese armed forces around a border town in a push to dislodge the biggest incursion by militants into Lebanon since Syria’s civil war began.

At least ten Lebanese soldiers have died in the fighting, which erupted after Islamist gunmen seized a local police station on Saturday in response to the arrest of their commander, security officials said.

An unknown number of militants and civilians have also been killed, and security sources say at least 16 members of Lebanon’s security forces have been taken captive.

The gunmen in Arsal include fighters linked to the Islamic State (Isis), the al Qaeda offshoot that has seized territory in Syria and Iraq, as well as Syria’s al Qaeda branch, the Nusra Front.

ISIS and its allies are now battling on multiple fronts Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Nigeria where Boko Harram has pledges allegiance and Libya. The self describe Caliphate has shattered the Iranian led Shiite crescent and are threatening Jordan. This organization is a cancer that is spreading. ISIS believes it is reliving the 7th Century Jihad.

Is William Gladstone a model for the Republican Party?

by Speranza ( 139 Comments › )
Filed under History, UK at June 5th, 2014 - 8:00 am

It seems that William Ewart Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli (and to a certain extent Lord Salisbury) were constantly replacing each other as Prime Minister in late Victorian Britain. Both were men of great political virtues. Britain’ s mistake was to neglect her army and to give almost all of her attention to her navy. In order to deter aggression you need strong land forces.

by Max Boot

In the Saturday Wall Street Journal, John Micklethwaite and Adrian Wooldridge of the Economist had an article, based on their new book The Fourth Revolution, putting forward William Ewart Gladstone–the Grand Old Man of Victorian politics–as a role model for 21st century Republicans.

Their effort to revive Gladstone’s reputation can only be cheered by anyone interested in 19th century British politics (which I confess is one of my quirkier interests) and the proposals they put forward for improving the effectiveness of government while reducing its cost appear laudable. [.......]As a parliamentary candidate and leader of the Liberal Party, he campaigned against what he saw as the imperialist excesses of the Tories in places such as southern Africa and Afghanistan where, in the First Boer War and the Second Afghan War, respectively, Britain was then suffering embarrassing reverses.

In his campaign Gladstone laid out the principles of what was then known as a Little England policy and today would be called non-interventionism. Among his principles: “1. The first thing is to foster the strength of the Empire by just legislation and economy at home. 2. My second principle of foreign policy is this: peace. 3. In my opinion the third sound principle is this to strive to cultivate and maintain, ay, to the very uttermost, what is called the concert of Europe; to keep the Powers of Europe in union together. 4. My fourth principle is that you should avoid needless and entangling engagements.  [.......] 6. And that sixth (principle) is, that in my opinion foreign policy, subject to all the limitations that I have described, the foreign policy of England should always be inspired by the love of freedom.”

Gladstone was certainly no isolationist. He criticized the Tories for not doing more about the Ottoman Empire’s slaughter of Christians in Bulgaria, and as prime minister he oversaw the virtual annexation of Egypt in 1882.  [......]

No matter how much Disraeli and Gladstone, in particular, were often ranged against each other on matters of policy both domestic and foreign, they shared in the Victorian consensus that Britain needed to keep defense spending low so as not to be a burden on the people’s purses or liberties. Britain spent enough to maintain the world’s largest navy but even its naval hegemony was increasingly challenged by a German naval buildup in the early 20th century. Meanwhile the British army remained tiny, fit only for imperial campaigning.

This was all part of a strategy that today is called “offshore balancing”: British policymakers vowed they could safeguard their interests by controlling the seas without having to intervene in a major land war in Europe. This is the same strategy that many urge on the U.S. today–in fact a strategy that the Obama administration seems to be implementing as we downsize our army to the lowest level since 1940. Yet all it takes is a passing familiarity with British history to see how delusional and self-destructive this policy can be.

The very fact that Britain lacked an army capable of fighting the armies of Europe meant that Britain was unable to deter German aggression in either 1914 or 1939. Indeed the British aversion to land warfare called into doubt its commitments to allies such as Belgium and France and led German militarists to gamble they could overrun Europe without major hindrance from London. In the event, the German calculation was wrong–Britain’s entry into both World War I and World War II was a key obstacle to German designs.  [.......]

Worried about spending too much on defense, the Victorians and their successors spent too little, and wound up having their country and their empire bled dry in conflagrations that might have been avoided if Britain had done more to defend itself and its allies. There is an important lesson here for present-day Republicans who focus only on reducing the size of government. They should not forget that government’s first duty is to defend the country and if it is unable to do that–or even if it is able to do so but only after a long, costly struggle that might have been avoided–then short-term cost savings on defense will prove ephemeral. In the end military weakness is far more costly than military strength. That was a lesson that Gladstone and other Victorian titans ignored and that their would-be successors should heed.

Read the rest – Is Gladstone a model for the GOP?

We’re All Racists Now!

by coldwarrior ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Bigotry, Economy, government, Islam, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Racism, UK at May 29th, 2014 - 5:00 pm

It was, after all, just a matter of time!

RAAAAACIST!

 

Are we all racist now?

As a survey of British social attitudes reveals a shocking upturn in prejudice, Allison Pearson argues that the political elite’s desire to advance multiculturalism with mass immigration has backfired

With impeccable timing, the children chose Mother’s Day lunch to tell their grandmother she was racist. And what vile abuse had my poor mother bandied about? She had asked her grandson if his choir sang Negro spirituals.

“Raaaa-cisst,” chorused my junior Thought Police with more than a hint of witchfinder glee.

“I’m not racist,” said my mother, clearly shocked. “What did I say that was racist?”

“You’re not allowed to call them Negro spirituals any more,” my Daughter informed her.

“What do you call them, then?” asked Grandma.

“African-American spirituals,” announced Daughter, a creature of such impeccable liberal certitude that she makes Nick Clegg look like Oswald Mosley.

“People of Colour spirituals,” hazarded the Boy. He obviously didn’t have a clue, but was enjoying his generation’s favourite baiting game: More Politically Correct Than Thou.

“Grandma is not racist,” said Himself. “Heinrich Himmler is a racist. Grandma, not so much.”

“Who’s Henry Himmer?” asked the Boy.

“Heinrich HIMMLER,” said Himself, “was a foul, Jew-exterminating, Nazi fiend whom your grandmother’s parents and their whole generation fought a world war to defeat in order that she could sit here 70 years later and be called racist by her sanctimonious and ungrateful grandchildren. Anyone for crumble?”

When my mum had gone for a nap, I explained to the kids that racism was not as black and white as they seemed to think. During their grandmother’s lifetime, the UK had seen vast social changes. Certain words once in common usage were now regarded as toxic, and rightly so. I blenched to think that, as a child myself, I went down the “Paki” shop to get some Blackjacks (inky toffees in a wrapper decorated with the faces of, then unremarkable, golliwogs). Miss Leyshon, my lovely primary school teacher, taught us to count with the help of three toys, Teddy, Dolly and Golly. In 2014, she would be considered guilty of inciting racial hatred.

I told the kids that, over the past 15 years, my mother’s town in South Wales had seen a huge influx of Eastern Europeans. It was possible for Grandma and her friends to note that the character of their birthplace had changed, and express some unease about it, but also for them to enthuse about their excellent Romanian dentist. Tolerance was not a one-way street. Tolerance meant treating elderly people who used outdated language with understanding, not finger-pointing and yelling “Raaa-cisst!” Real racism – the ugly, frightening, visceral kind – would flourish if people’s tolerance was taken for granted, and their communities changed too fast without any regard for the consequences.

That was two months ago, and I wish I were more surprised to learn that a new British Social Attitudes survey has found that more than a third of Britons admit they are racially prejudiced. Prejudice fell to an all-time low in 2001, but the latest figures show that the problem has returned to the level of 30 years ago. More than 90 per cent of those who say they are racist want to see immigration halted. More interestingly, 72 per cent of those who do not consider themselves racist also want to see immigration cut drastically.

As shell-shocked politicians from the main parties struggle to discern the causes of Ukip’s deafening electoral success, here’s a tip: look in the mirror, chaps! It is politicians, not the British people, who are to blame for a resurgence in racism; politicians who have ignored public opinion and created the conditions in which resentments fester and grow. Specifically, though not exclusively, it is New Labour who welcomed workers from the new, accession countries of the EU at a time when countries such as France and Germany wisely exercised their right to keep them out for another seven years. According to Jack Straw, this was a “spectacular” error. And Jack should know, because he was Home Secretary at the time. The plan of Tony Blair’s government, as laid bare by Andrew Neather, then a Blair speechwriter, was to banish that old, hideously white, retrograde England and usher in a new, vibrant, multicultural country which, rather conveniently, would vote Labour. Mr Blair now works in international conflict resolution, having stored up enough conflict in his homeland to keep future generations busy for centuries.

You bigoted xenophobic nazis can read the rest here.

John Kerry insults France, UK, Canada, Israel in one speech

by Speranza ( 4 Comments › )
Filed under Canada, France, Headlines, Islamists, Israel, John Kerry, Syria, UK at May 26th, 2014 - 7:36 am

This clown came very close to being president in 2004.

by Daniel Greenfield

The State Department repeatedly refused to name Boko Haram a terrorist organization, urged the government to pursue appeasement policies and even threatened the Nigerian government for daring to fight them.

Now Kerry is beating his sunken chest while insulting a whole bunch of other countries.

The United States is alone in helping Nigeria locate more than 200 schoolgirls kidnapped by Islamists, Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday, despite help on the ground from Britain, France and Israel

“Boko Haram, Nigeria, only the United States is there offering the assistance to help find those young women,” Kerry said during a dinner at the State Department.

“Other countries not only aren’t they invited, but they didn’t even offer. That’s a difference, and I think it’s a difference worth dwelling on.”

However the United States is joined in Nigeria by Britain, France and Israel, which have sent their own experts. China, which saw 10 citizens likely abducted by Boko Haram in a region bordering Cameroon, has also proposed to help.

Also Canada appears to have sent some support.

The Canadian government announced more than two weeks ago that it was sending surveillance equipment and personnel to Nigeria to help search for the schoolgirls who were abducted by Boko Haram extremists. It later emerged that Canada was also sending special forces’ soldiers as further support.

Then in a stunning betrayal, Kerry lashed out at his own homeland.

In his speech, Kerry also lashed out at France, whose Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has expressed regret that the United States did not attack Syria a year ago amid spiraling violence in the conflict there.

“People are angry because we did not strike Syria at one instance but guess what: Today, 92 percent of all the chemical weapons in Syria are out and being destroyed and the other eight percent will get out,” a visibly angry Kerry said, without mentioning France specifically.

“That never would have occurred otherwise.”

It hasn’t occurred anyway. Anyone who thinks that Syria has given up the majority of its chemical weapons is… well John Kerry.

The UK is not exactly thrilled with the snub. The French enjoy diplomatic fights with the US. And the Israelis couldn’t possibly hate Kerry anymore. But there is something strange about Kerry using a State Department dinner to demonstrate the opposite of diplomacy.

It’s the kind of thing Democrats expected from Bush.

 

British Jews vote Tory because they are rich, according to “Red” Ken Livingstone

by Speranza ( 12 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Headlines, Judaism, UK at May 8th, 2014 - 8:42 pm

Red Ken Livingstone is an appalling person but then again Britain is loaded with people who think just as he does.

by Christopher Hope

British Jews have switched their support from Labour to Conservative because they have got richer, according to a Labour politician.

Ken Livingstone, a former Labour MP and Mayor of London, said that income rather than skin colour was the reason why people voted for different political parties

Speaking on the BBC’s Newsnight programme on Tuesday night, he said: “People vote according to their income. Now that can change – it might be a generation before people catch up.

“If we were talking 50 years ago, the Roman Catholic community, the Irish community in Britain, the Jewish community was solidly Labour. Still the Irish Catholic community is pretty still solidly Labour because it is not terribly rich.

“As the Jewish community got richer, it moved over to voting for Mrs Thatcher as they did in Finchley.”

Mr Livingstone was discussing how politicians can do more to appeal to the growing proportion of Britons who have an ethnic minority background.

He said: “People come to Britain to become part of Britain, they don’t come to change it. I think the defining issue is not your colour or your religition it is your level of income.”

Referring to Sajid Javid, who was recently made Culture secretary, he continued: “David Cameron has just appointed the first British person of Pakistani origin – I look at him and I don’t see a Pakistani, I see a banker who earned £3million a year. That is why he is in the Tory party.”

The comments were dismissed by Adrian Cohen, chairman of the London Jewish forum.

Mr Cohen said: “Ken Livingstone last made comments to this effect during the Mayoral election. It’s pretty obvious that politicians shouldn’t write off parts of the electorate based on crude assumptions about their perceived relative affluence.

“Many Jews are not rich, indeed many struggle to make ends meet. In any event there are many factors which influence how a person chooses to vote and one shouldn’t refer to Jewish Londoners as if they were homogeneous.”

How the only pilot to thwart a gunman at 29,000 feet, did it

by Speranza ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Israel, Palestinians, Terrorism, UK at April 4th, 2014 - 7:00 am

As two commenters wrote The best lesson to be learned from this hero: “As long as you know you’re not going to allow it to happen, then you’ll find the way.”  and That reminds me of Hannibal’s line: We will find a way or we will make one.” Is any one surprised that the British authorities treated the crew of the El Al plane almost as if they were the  criminals?

by Mitch Ginsburg

With the world’s attention focused on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, a retired El Al pilot, a veteran of five armed hijacking attempts and plots, including one movie-worthy standoff at 29,000 feet, splashed some local brandy into his afternoon tea.

“When you don’t know, you just don’t know,” Uri Bar-Lev said of the fate of the airliner, speaking two weeks after it dropped off the radar.

 [......]

The Times of Israel mentioned the missing plane and hinted at his heroics. We said there might be a lesson to be learned or simply a tale worth re-telling.  [......]

On September 6, 1970, Bar-Lev, who had flown as a 16-year-old in the 1948 War of Independence and later during the 1956 War, was picked up from his Amsterdam hotel and brought to Schiphol airport to fly the second leg of El Al Flight 219 from Tel Aviv to New York. Before take-off, El Al’s security officer on duty at the airport told the pilot that there were four suspicious people seeking to board the flight. Two held Senegalese passports with consecutive numbers; two others, a couple, carried less suspicious looking Honduran passports, but all had ordered their tickets at the last minute.

Bar-Lev, in consultation with the security officer, barred the Senegalese passengers from boarding and demanded that the local security officers closely inspect the two Honduran nationals before allowing them to board.

Although at the time he did not know that no such inspection had been performed, he stopped at seat 2C and had a chat with Avihu Kol, one of the two armed security officers on the plane. “I told him, I want you in the cockpit with me,” Bar-Lev said.

Kol was alone in first class. He might as well have been wearing a sign that said air marshal. “Someone could just come up behind him and shoot him in the head,” Bar-Lev said, recalling that Kol had warned him about just such a scenario two weeks before.

[.......]Yet El Al was the only airline in the world to field armed guards and re-enforced steel cockpit doors — precautions that had been put in place after the 1968 hijacking of an El Al jet to Algeria, the only time Israel’s national carrier has been hijacked. Kol, though, initially resisted Bar-Lev’s demand that he sit in the cockpit, saying it contradicted his orders. Finally, Bar-Lev pulled rank.

At 29,000 feet, with the plane still climbing, the emergency light flashed in the cockpit. False alarm, one of the crew members said. It happened often. Flight attendants sometimes grazed against the warning panels, sounding the alarm. “No,” Bar-Lev responded, “we’re being hijacked.”

Seconds later a flight attendant’s voice came through the intercom: two people, armed with a gun and two grenades, wanted to enter the cockpit. If he didn’t open the door, they would blow up the plane.

Bar-Lev sent flight engineer Uri Zach to look through the peep hole. The “Honduran” man, Nicaraguan-American Sandinista supporter Patrick Argüello, a former Fulbright scholar operating on behalf of George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was holding a gun to a female flight attendant’s head. Uri, she said to the pilot through the locked door, they are going to kill me if you don’t open up.

According to the International Air Transport Association rules, Bar-Lev said, a pilot is responsible “for the welfare of his passengers” and therefore must acquiesce to the demands of terrorists. His thinking was just the opposite: acceding will only further endanger the passengers. Giving voice to an unformed thought, he said aloud, “We are not going to be taken hostage.”

Sitting in the right-hand seat, having let the co-pilot handle the take-off from Amsterdam, Bar-Lev recalled his mandatory training on the Boeing 707 at the company headquarters several years earlier.  [......] He wanted to know the outer limits of the plane’s capacity. The instructor, a Korean War vet, walked him through some of the maneuvers and explained that the passenger plane was very strong and could endure more than it would seem at first glance.

The plane began to plummet, dropping 10,000 feet in a minute

Bar-Lev told Kol, the air marshal, to hold on tight. He was going to throw the plane into a dive. The negative g-force, akin to the feeling one gets on the downhill section of a roller coaster ride, would accomplish two things: it would lower the plane’s altitude, reducing the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the plane, which would make a bullet hole or a grenade explosion less dangerous; and it would throw the hijackers off their feet. The passengers, he said, were all belted in and would be fine.

Bar-Lev lifted the nose of the aircraft, dipped one of the wings, and then tilted the nose down to earth. The plane began to plummet, dropping 10,000 feet in a minute. When he pulled out of the dive, Kol charged through the door and killed Argüello.

The second terrorist, Leila Khaled, a Palestinian veteran of previous skyjackings, rolled a grenade forward but it didn’t explode. In her memoir, Bar-Lev said, Khaled claimed to have been violently subdued, but the air marshals found her passed out from the dive and quickly arrested her.

“The whole thing took two and a half minutes,” Bar-Lev said.

A photo of the two airliners that were hijacked and flown to Jordan on that September 6, 1970 (photo credit: wiki)

But it was far from over. Three other planes, in what Bar-Lev called a more complex attack than 9-11, had been hijacked. The two men carrying Senegalese passports had commandeered a Pan Am flight and flown it to Egypt. TWA and Swiss Air flights were flown to Jordan. The Shin Bet, via an El Al dispatcher, sent Bar-Lev a terse command: About face. Come home.

On board he had two armed Shin Bet officers — Kol, and a second agent who was at the back of the plane — plus a dead man and an internationally wanted terrorist. Pivotally, though, he also learned that Shlomo Vider, the chief flight attendant, had charged the hijackers and been shot several times. Before responding to the Shin Bet’s orders – Bar-Lev didn’t know and wasn’t told about the other hijackings – he called for a doctor to come forward and examine Vider. The most qualified person was a dentist. He ruled that Vider was in stable condition. “I didn’t think so, though,” said Bar-Lev. Vider was pale and though he had been shot, he didn’t seem to be bleeding out, raising concerns about internal bleeding.

[......]

Headquarters again ordered him to return to Israel, but Bar-Lev contacted the British authorities and began to descend. En route, he heard the voice of an El Al pilot preparing to take off from Heathrow to Israel. “I told him to switch to the internal frequency,” Bar-Lev said.

Speaking quickly and in Hebrew, he told the other pilot the situation and the plan: he would land near him. In the commotion, no one would notice if the two armed Shin Bet marshals slipped through the flight engineer’s maintenance door between the wheels and quickly boarded the Israel-bound plane in the same way. The last thing he needed was for the two to be arrested by the local authorities and possibly charged for killing Argüello.

He insisted that he had simply flown the plane throughout and did not know how the Nicaraguan terrorist had died

Bar-Lev had good reason for concern. In February 1969 a Shin Bet air marshal named Mordechai Rachamim had fought off a squad of terrorists attacking an El Al plane in Zurich. After jumping out of the airplane door under fire, apprehending three of the terrorists and killing the fourth, the Swiss authorities, before finally exonerating him, first put him on trial for manslaughter.

After Bar-Lev slowed the plane to a stop, the crew welcomed an emergency British medical team on board. Vider, he later learned, reached the local hospital an estimated five minutes from death. But when Bar-Lev tried to close the door and head back to Tel Aviv, several armed agents from the British secret services drew their sidearms and said, “Do not shut that door. You are on the soil of Great Britain.”

Bar-Lev and the rest of the crew were taken for interrogation. Asked what he told the British authorities, he said, “I told them nothing.” He insisted that he had simply flown the plane throughout and did not know how the Nicaraguan terrorist had died.

An El Al security officer, in the meanwhile, printed tickets for the two Shin Bet air marshals who had slipped onto the Israel-bound flight and, after going through the passenger list repeatedly, the British authorities were forced to let the plane take off.

Bar-Lev and the crew were released the following day. The British authorities knew they were lying but could find no proof. Leila Khaled remained in the United Kingdom. She was let out of British custody three weeks later, after a British jet was hijacked on September 9, en route from Bahrain, expressly in order to secure her release.

For Bar-Lev, though, the ordeal was still not over. Upon return to Israel, a man he did not recognize took him into a side room and began asking questions: Why had he insisted on bringing the sky marshal into the cockpit? Why had he refused a direct order to return to Tel Aviv? Why had he dismissed the dentist’s assessment?

The next day, El Al Director General Mordechai Ben-Ari told him that the Shin Bet would not provide security for Israel’s national air carrier so long as he remained an active pilot. Ben-Ari tried to convince him to take a year off, to pacify the Shin Bet, and then return to service.

[......]

He phoned Golda Meir and asked to explain his side of the story. After giving his version of events to Meir, Moshe Dayan and the head of the Shin Bet at the time, he was given a two-week holiday and then reinstated, with honors for bravery.

Several months after that, then-transportation minister Shimon Peres helped pass a new law that gave pilots the right to resist hijackings and immunity against foreign lawsuits, such as the one Pan Am filed against Bar-Lev for not alerting the airline to the danger posed by the two Senegalese men and the one the British authorities briefly pursued – to charge Bar-Lev as an accomplice to murder.

Today, though, he said, despite the thousands of deaths caused by airline terror since that day in September 1970, there is still not a consensus among airlines that pilots are part of the inner circle of protection against terror. Lamenting the tragedy of 9/11, and the way 2,977 innocent people were killed by 19 hijackers wielding household objects such as penknives, he said the “formula for prevention” is for the crew to be trained, in mind more than in body, to resist.

“As long as you know you’re not going to allow it to happen, then you’ll find the way,” he said.

Read the rest – How to thwart a gunman at 29,000 feet, by the only pilot who ever did

Lloyd George’s War

by Speranza ( 235 Comments › )
Filed under France, Germany, History, UK at March 27th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

This BBC Timewatch documentary from 2005 examines the effects of David Lloyd George as British Prime Minister during World War I. It also features a critical analysis of his relationship with Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig as well as Lloyd George’s impact on the perceived history of the Great War in the 1920s. British Expeditionary Force commander Sir Douglas Haig had a well deserved reputation of being a commander who was profligate with the lives of his soldiers. Lloyd George recognizing that two British army’s had been pretty much destroyed - the first being the small professional army of 1914 was just about wiped out at Ypres in the Autumn of 1914, the second was the Kitchener Army which was raised after the destruction of the first army and was bled white at the Somme in 1916 and Passchendale in 1917. When  the great Ludendorff Offensive in the Spring  of 1918 (21 March – 18 July 1918)  opened with some initial tactical successes against the British, Haig desperately needed reinforcements while Lloyd George held them back until the right time because he did not want Haig to destroy a third army. Nevertheless, Haig was ultimately reinforced and he finally developed into a good commander and with the cooperation  of the French, Belgian, and the newly arrived American Expeditionary Force defeated the German Army during the Hundred Days Offensives (July 18 – November 11, 1918). Lloyd George was incorrect in his belief that Germany’s allies Austria-Hungary and Turkey were propping up Germany when it was in fact Germany that was propping up them.

I do not agree with the revisionists who claim it would not have made much of a difference if Germany had won World War I. The Germany of the Kaiser was an appalling regime which was completely imperialist. We now know that had Germany won, their demands on the defeated French and Belgians would have been absolutely brutal regarding territorial annexations, economic exploitations and crushing indemnities designed to cripple France for decades (see the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the Treaty of Bucharest for two good examples). The big mistake the Allies made was in their refusing to deal with dictators and insisting that only a civilian German government should sign the armistice. This allowed the arch reactionaries to falsely claim that the German army was never defeated. In May 1945 the allies did not make that mistake and they insisted that the German Army surrender and that the surrender but unconditional  with no German soldiers marching back to Germany with their weapons and signs proclaiming that they never were defeated.

A critical evaluation of Field marshal Douglas Haig giving both sides of the story.

Why Obama will not shift gears on foreign policy; and indivsible anti-Semitism

by Speranza ( 88 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Cold War, History, Holocaust, Iran, Israel, Judaism, Koran, Libya, Palestinians, UK, World War II at March 19th, 2014 - 7:13 am

Miss Glick feels that Obama’s feckless foreign policy is motivated by his rather hostile feelings about America’s history both foreign and domestic.

by Caroline Glick

Just before Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated Russia’s takeover of Crimea, the US’s Broadcasting Board of Governors that controls Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty announced that it will be ending its broadcast to Iraq and the Balkans next year.

And this makes sense. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, Iraq ceased to exist in 2011, when the last US forces got out of the country.

As for the Baltics, well, really who cares about them? Russia, after all, wants the same things America does. Everything will be fine.

As Obama said to Governor Mitt Romney during one of the 2012 presidential debates, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

During the election, Obama was famously caught on an open microphone promising President Putin’s stand-in Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility,” on missile defense after the presidential election.

He asked Medvedev to ask Putin to give him “more space” until after November 2012.

With a five-and-half-year record of selling US allies like Poland, the Czech Republic and even the Syrian opposition out to please Putin, it should be obvious that Obama will do nothing effective to show Putin the error of his ways in Ukraine.

Obama doesn’t have a problem with Putin.

And as long as Putin remains anti-American, he will have no reason to be worried about Obama.

Consider Libya. Three years ago this week, NATO forces supported by the US began their campaign to bring down Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

As Patrick Coburn noted in The Independent over the weekend, the same Western forces who insisted that their “responsibility to protect” the Libyan people from a possible massacre by Gaddafi’s forces compelled them to bring down Gaddafi and his regime have had nothing to say today about the ongoing bloodbath in post-Gaddafi Libya.

[......]

But Gaddafi, the neutered dictator who quit the terrorism and nuclear-proliferation rackets after the US-led invasion of Iraq, is gone. So no one cares.

Coburn mentioned the recent documentary aired on Al Jazeera – America that upended the West’s narrative that the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was the work of the Libyan government. According to a credible Iranian defector, the attack was ordered by Iran and carried out by Palestinian terrorists from Ahmed Jibril’s PFLP-GC.

He wrote, “the documentary emphasizes the sheer number of important politicians and senior officials over the years who must have looked at intelligence reports revealing the truth about Lockerbie, but still happily lied about it.”

If the Al Jazeerah documentary is correct, there is good reason for the public in the US, Europe and throughout the world to be angry about the cover-up.

But there is no reason to be surprised.

Since its inception, the Iranian regime has been at war with the US. It has carried out one act of aggression after another. These have run the gamut from the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding hostage US diplomats for 444 days, to the use of Lebanese and Palestinian proxies to murder US officials, citizens and soldiers in countless attacks over the intervening 35 years, to building a military presence in Latin America, to developing nuclear weapons.

[.......]
A similar situation obtains with the Palestinians. Like the Iranians, the PLO has carried out countless acts of terrorism that have killed US officials and citizens.

From the 1970 Fatah execution of the US ambassador and deputy chief of mission in Khartoum to the 2003 bombing of the US embassy convoy in Gaza, the PLO has never abandoned terrorism against the US.

No less importantly, the PLO is the architect of modern terrorism. From airline hijackings, to the massacre of schoolchildren, from bus bombings to the destabilization of nation states, the PLO is the original author of much of the mayhem and global terrorism the US has led the fight against since the 1980s.

And of course, the PLO’s main stated goal is the destruction of Israel, the US’s only dependable ally, and the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

[.......]

In many ways, then the Obama administration is simply a loyal successor of previous administrations. But in one essential way, it is also different.

IN A 2006 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, civil rights historian Shelby Steele argued that the reason the US has lost every war it has fought since World War II despite the fact that it has had the military might to vanquish all of its enemies is “white guilt.”

White guilt, he argued, makes its sufferers in the West believe that they lack the moral authority to act due to the stigma of white supremacy and imperialism.

Writing of the then raging insurgency in Iraq, Steele explained, “When America – the greatest embodiment of Western power – goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and the other against the past – two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.”

This neurotic view of America’s moral underpinning is what explains the instinctive American tendency to strike out at those who do not oppose the West – like Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt – while giving a pass to those who do – like the Palestinians and the Iranians.

But whereas white guilt has afflicted the US leadership for the past several generations, past administrations were willing to set it aside when necessary to advance US national security interests.

This cannot happen with Obama.

Obama owes his presidency to white guilt. His promise to American voters was that by voting for him, they would expiate their guilt for the sins of European imperialists and southern racists.

It was the American desire to move beyond the past that enabled a first-term senator with radical connections and the most liberal voting record in the Senate to get elected to the presidency.

But tragically for the US and the free world, Obama’s worldview is informed not by an appreciation for what Steele extolled as America’s “moral transformation,” on issue of race. Rather it is informed by his conviction that the US deserves its guilt.

Obama does not share Bill Clinton’s view that the US is “the indispensable nation,” although he invoked the term on the campaign trail in 2012.

From his behavior toward foe and friend alike, Obama gives the impression that he does not believe the US has the right to stand up for its interests.

Moreover, his actions from Israel to Eastern Europe to Egypt and Libya indicate that he believes there is something wrong with nations that support and believe in the US.

Their pro-Americanism apparently makes them guilty of white guilt by association.

So Iran, the Palestinians and Russia needn’t worry. Obama will not learn from his mistakes, because as far as he is concerned, he hasn’t made any.

Read the rest - Why Obama will not shift gears

Miss Glick feels that one cannot condemn anti-Semtism and the same time seek to demonize and harm the Jewish State. Hence she feels that the U.N. International Holocaust Memorial Day gives the world’s anti-Semites a fig leaf of “moral authority” to engage in virulent anti-Semitism.

by Caroline Glick

On March 19, it will be two years since Mohammed Merah slaughtered three Jewish children and a rabbi in the courtyard of the Ozar Hatorah Jewish day school in Toulouse, France.

Far from being a wake-up call that forced the French to their senses, and compelled them to purge their society of the Jew-hatred that inspired Merah to film himself blowing his victims’ brains out, his act served as an inspiration for other anti-Semites.

According to the French Interior Ministry, anti-Semitic attacks rose 60 percent in 2012 over 2011 levels.

Over the past decade and a half, anti-Semitism has moved from the backroom to the living room throughout Europe.

All aspects of Jewish life are under assault.

Religious observance has become an act of near rebellion against social graces.

In 2009, the British Supreme Court ruled that Jewish schools that followed religious tradition and only admitted children who have a Jewish mother were guilty of racial discrimination.

In other words, the British Supreme Court said that traditional Judaism is racist.

In country after country, campaigns to ban Jewish ritual practices are in full swing. Government after government has passed or moved toward passing bans on shechita, Jewish traditional slaughter of animals. Mila, infant male circumcision, is also under assault. Both, of course, are foundations of Jewish observance.

[.......]
Of course, even more popular than accusing Jews of subjecting cows and chickens to monstrous slaughter is the practice of accusing Jews of subjecting Palestinians to monstrous slaughter.

For Europe’s elite, radical and increasingly, violent anti-Zionism has become the anti-Semitism of choice. Among other things, anti-Zionists believe that Israel is inherently illegitimate and necessarily, and purposely, evil. For them, Israel is Nazi Germany.

And supporters of Israel are for them the greatest evildoers in the world. They should be accorded no courtesy, and be treated as human scum.

This has been made clear, most vividly in recent years on college campuses where pro-Israel supporters are run off campuses, shouted off stages and barred from presenting their views.

One recent episode of this sort occurred on March 5 at the National University of Ireland, Galway, where British professor Alan Johnson tried to speak in opposition to an initiative to get the university to join the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.

A YouTube video of the event showed how a mob of BDS supporters prevented him from speaking. They shouted curses at him and his colleagues and demanded they “get the f*** off our campus!” Writing of the experience and the hate movement that stands behind it in The Times of Israel, Johnson reported that the student leading the effort to silence him is the head of NUIG’s Palestine Solidarity Society named Joseph Loughnane.

[........]

Johnson wrote that “the border between being radical and transgressive [toward Israel] and being anti-Semitic is now porous.”

Although accurate, Johnson’s assertion understates the problem.

Opposing Judaism and Jews, denying Jewish rights to education and ritual observance, and attacking Jews; and opposing the Jewish state, denying Jews their right to self-determination and attacking supporters of the Jewish state, are two sides of the same coin. There is no border – porous or solid between them. They are one and the same.

And all anti-Semites know it.

On Monday, The New York Times reported that attempts by French authorities to silence the anti-Semitic comic Dieudonne M’bala M’bala have backfired. The performer who invented and popularized the inverted Nazi salute has bridged the divide between French Muslim anti-Semites and French fascist anti-Semites.

The habit of Dieudonne’s fans to have their pictures taken at Jewish sites and Nazi death camps while performing the salute caused French officials to ban his public performances, arguing reasonably that his incendiary anti-Semitic incitement is a threat to public safety.

Rather than listen to authorities and recognize that Dieudonne’s actions are obscene, hateful and dangerous, the official ban on his performances has only raised his popularity. According to the Times, his most recent YouTube video had two million hits in its first week.

[.........]
But this is not the real reason that the ban has backfired.

The ban backfired because the French don’t take the government seriously.

How can it be wrong for Frenchmen to parade through the streets of Paris ordering the Jews to leave the country, when the French government also trucks in anti-Semitism? How can French authorities’ 14-year defense of France 2 television network’s invention of the Muhammad al-Dura blood libel be squared with their denunciation of Dieudonne? It will be recalled that in October 2000, France 2’s Israel correspondent Charles Enderlain broadcast a story where he presented doctored footage that created the illusion Dura had been killed while crouching in fear, by venal IDF soldiers in Gaza. That doctored footage served as the impetus for massive anti-Semitic demonstrations, and murderous anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in Israel, throughout Europe and around the world.

In January 2006, Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and tortured to death because he was a Jew.

Despite the fact that during his 26 days in captivity Halimi’s kidnappers telephoned his mother 700 times, during which she heard the tortured cries of her son while his kidnappers recited verses from the Koran over the phone, French law enforcement officials insisted that Halimi’s abduction was a run-of-the-mill kidnapping for ransom, rather than an anti-Semitic hate crime. Consequently they refused to accept that his life was in danger, or that they should devote resources to finding and saving him.

And their denial of the nature of the crime didn’t end when Halimi turned up naked, at the railway siding, with burns over 80 percent of his body, only to die shortly thereafter.

It took French authorities another week to acknowledge that Halimi was murdered because he was a Jew.

Two years ago, French authorities tried to hide the fact that Merah was a Muslim, claiming instead that he was a Nazi. When they were finally forced to acknowledge the truth, they blamed Israel for his crime.

Speaking to reporters, then-French interior minister Claude Gueant said that Merah was associated with al-Qaida and that he was upset about what Gueant referred to as Israel’s “murder” of Palestinian children.

The 17,000 Frenchmen who marched through the streets of Paris on the eve of International Holocaust Memorial Day in January and called for the Jews to get out of France see through French authorities’ hypocrisy.

French and other European authorities who libel Israel by projecting onto the Jewish state the crimes committed by Muslim terrorists against Jewish children do not scare the likes of Dieudonne and his millions of supporters.

[......]

And they certainly are not convinced of the error of their ways.

The simple fact is that you cannot fight anti-Semitism by endorsing it. The only way you can fight anti-Semitism is by fighting all forms of anti-Semitism, including the demonization and delegitimization of Israel.

The European have good company in denying this basic fact. Senior American Jewish leaders similarly ignore it.

EARLIER THIS month, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee announced their opposition to state bills barring universities from using public funds to fund academic organizations that participate in boycotts against Israel. Bills of this type are being debated by the Maryland and New York state legislatures and are being drafted at the federal level by members of Congress.

Both groups claimed that they oppose the bills even though they oppose the BDS movement, because they claim that such actions limit academic freedom.

Three things stand out in their explanation.

First, preventing taxpayer money from being used to fund campaigns to demonize and criminalize Israel and so promote hatred of Jews has nothing to do with limiting academic freedom.

Second, the actions of BDS activists have nothing to do with academic freedom. By demonizing and intimidating students and faculty who oppose them, their aim is to end both free speech and academic freedom.

And conversely, fighting them advances both free speech and academic freedom.

Finally, it is simply bizarre that the ADL and the AJC felt compelled to weigh in on this issue to begin with. If they didn’t want to be associated with this action, they could have kept their mouths shut.

By entering the fray on behalf of the BDS movement, they gave legitimacy to it, despite their claims that they oppose anti-Israel boycotts.

Both the ADL and the AJC present themselves as among other things, Jewish civil rights groups that aim to defend Jews, including the Jewish state.

And yet, here they are making an artificial distinction between the two – a distinction not shared by the haters.

It is no doubt tempting to accept the artificial distinction between rejecting Israel’s right to exist and rejecting the right of Jews to practice Judaism. Doing so allows you to pretend that the problem isn’t as bad as it is, and to pretend that the fates of Israel and Jews of the Diaspora are not directly linked. It allows you to pretend that Jewish Americans who join the BDS movement are not anti-Semites. And it allows you to pretend that European leaders who minimize real anti-Semitic crimes by equating them with imaginary Israeli crimes are not inherently hostile to Jews.

But you cannot fight Jew-hatred by making distinctions between its various forms. They are all components of the same thing. And either you fight all of them, with no distinction, or you fight none of them, and even legitimize the bigotry.

Read the rest – Indivisible anti-Semitism