A new kind of warfare

Vision Aforethought

M, indeed, but if all people are exposed to today in the mainstream broadcast media is poncy dancing, cooking and wife swapping, as opposed to the intelligent wit of 80s humor (Two Ronnies, Rising Damp etc) and the mind expanding programming (Blue Peter, James Burke's Connections, pre-quick edited Horizon etc), then we cannot expect people to comprehend their station because their minds are stuffed full of fluff the second they leave the maternity ward. Sad to say it, it's not their fault. Only those over about 40 start to 'get it', but alas, with young people in positions of power in the media and government today, we're up a pole. On the upside, if things really do fall apart to such an extent that 'civilization as we know it' comes to an end, pre-history has proven that by the nature of our species, the smart ones will survive to give 'Humanity II' another whirl...

logdon

On this subject Melanie has a grasp which eludes all but the ones who are not brainwashed by institutions ranging from the UN to our local councils. These organisations have leapt on a bandwagon pushed by Saudi money and proseletisation which is placing Islam on an unassailable pedestal. The Jihad Watch site which I first discovered a few years ago is a wonderful counterpoint, presented with erudition and a depth of knowledge few can seriously argue with. Although American they are global in reach and coverage and depressingly Britain comes up as the grand dhimmi of dhimmi states and to our shame is regarded as an almost fifth column nation which will place Islamic rights above our very own ancient and hard won liberties. As a nation of immigrants we have witnessed in our history the arrival of countless groupings who in the main have added to our knowledge, productivity and tolerance. This tolerance isn't a forced by law grumbling acceptance but a genuine and joyful desire to widen our knowledge and protect the underdog. I genuinely believe that apart from the usual suspects we are simply not racist by nature and a glance at the surnames in local telephone directories will show how diverse we really are. However there's a new kind of kid in town not satisfied with it's place in the status quo but based on tenets forged in seventh century Arabia wishes for complete dominance. The aforementioned councils blindly ignore this phenomena of expansive Islam which emboldened by 9/11 and a western desire to placate rather than confront, actively collude in the hollowing out of our traditions and culture. They mistakenly think that by offering concession after concession the advance will be halted but Islam doesn't work like that. They see victory and then use it as a springboard for further incursion. We now have forms of shari'ah law. We now accept bigamy as an excuse for breaking other laws. We now have no-go areas where non muslims are actively discouraged from entering. We serve our children halal food in schools. We provide special toilets in social housing and hospitals. We turn a blind eye to Muslim male grooming of young white girls. Our invalid soldiers have even suffered abuse in hospitals at the hands of outraged Muslims who view the Iraq War as a personal attack. Media investigations have been attacked by muslim authorities and the Channel Four Undercover Mosque affair surely indicates where loyalties lie. Even our Olympic stadium is in danger of being dwarfed by a huge mosque which would send out precisely what message to international visitors? Are they in Mecca or the capital which gave birth to democracy? The list is far too long to even contemplate reproducing but I think the message is clear. Clear that is to those who will voice concern and who are not intimidated by an overwheening state which is intent on the trashing of Britain. Here is one of those men and this intervention is to be massively applauded. Common sense? You bet! Will anyone listen? Don't bet on that one!

Noon calls for ban on immigration
PA
Monday, 1 December 2008

One of the country's highest-profile Indian-born businessmen has said Britain should close its borders to all immigrants for up to 10 years.

Sir Gulam Noon, known as the "Curry King" because of his ready-meals firm, said a ban was required to prevent potential racial unrest. "I strongly feel that whoever are the immigrants here, we better give them jobs and give them dignity to live here before we import some more," he told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show.

"I do not want a situation whereby a party like the BNP says 'listen, all your jobs are being taken away by immigrants'." The suggestion that a ban could last up to a decade comes from a forthcoming autobiography, the Mail on Sunday reported.

It said Mr Noon writes in the book: "We should wait for five or 10 years, until all the newcomers have been properly integrated and assimilated into the country.

Until then we should just shut the door."

Miranda Rose Smith

Brilliant, as usual, Ms. Phillips. People view Israel as an oppressor because they don't like it when Jews survive-they just like to cry over dead Jews.
Speaking of Mumbai: I hope and pray that no participant on this website has lost friends or relatives in the carnage.

Dixon

But lots of people have been saying these things for nih on twenty years. Nothing happens.

What do we have instead, not only are the Media "embedded" with our forces, but oridinary soldiers are allowed to carry their own cameras, video cameras, phones, video phones etc into combat. On a recent news report a woman described how her boyfriend was talking to her on his mobile from Afghanistan and he said "I have to go..." when the unit came under attack! What sort of potty state of affairs is this? If personal cameras were ruthlessly banned from the miltary we would not have had the Abu Grhaib fiasco. Because there would have been no pictures.

Absolutely, battlefields must be made into areas utterly sanitised of the media. War is not a bloody spectator sport. It should be conducted without idiots armed with cameras "policing" our efforts, as the media themselves see it.

Then what to do about that media? Its not difficult really. You make all employment in television, radio or publications above a certain circulation or viewership require a national certificate. Like a nursing qualification. But comprising a course in how to think independent of political natrrative and relay information without politically loaded interpretation. You make sure noone gets this certificate who doesnt meet the tutors assessment. The tutors would be hand-picked for their sophisticated ability to critiqie media mind-set. Moreover, it would be possible for a certificate to be withdrawn from a journalist if therte are enough complaints against them. Like a GP being struck off. This system IS possible today ( as I say, there are lots of parallels with careers such as nursing ). It would take a decade to have an effect, but it WOULD.

The present situation, letting anybody present any version of events however skewed before an audiencer of millions is like giving someone a loaded gun and tyelling them "here, go out and use it". Its irresponsible.

And this wopuld NOT be censorship. Just "training".

Dixon

In fact, the BBC already has long used a negative version of such a system, geared to filtering out people who are not already "siinging from the same hymn sheet", its the Equity membershiip racket.

straightchris

UN Resolution 242 and the decision of the International court of Justice regarding the separation wall and illegal settlements on the West Bank are very clear about what Israel is obligated to do.
The UN findings on the war in Lebanon 2006 was also very clear about Israel's disproportionate use of force.
If we don't have some kind of rule of law then we lack moral authority.

Anthony

Dixon, when it comes to prime time presenters the BBC has a filtering system for anyone who doesn't sing from any part of its hymn sheet.

To digress just for a tick, we need only to look at the case of David Bellamy, who dares to challenge the nonsense of global warming.

He recently spoke out about his treatment by the BBC and it had such a response that there was a follow-up over the weekend.

This is the first article:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/69623/BBC-shunned-me-for-denying-climate-change

And this is the follow-up:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/73486/David-Bellamy-Global-warming-is-nonsense-

N

Mel,
There is a book written by a Brit that you should read: "The utility of force" by General Rupert Smith, it discusses much of what you stated. As a pro-Israel person i'm surprised that you didn't mention Israel. The Israeli's have some of the best soldiers in the world, but have "met their match" with Hezbollah and Hamas for the same reasons cited above. There is another reason that acts against both the British and Americans: the People. John Yoo wrote a book (i can't remember the title, but it's about the War in Iraq) and in it he gives logical reasons for Bush's action of witholding Geneva convention rights to terrorists. However, the People, who have no knowledge of warfare what so ever, still think of the conflicts we are facing as one army facing another army when in reality it is not. One thing John Yoo mentions is that the terrorist don't "follow the rules" to be eligible for Geneva Convention rights, but the People don't see that. Our first mistake was trying to fight the bad guys with our big guns, big army approach. Look at your history, the British have faced similar guerrilla wars before and never has pure force worked. The enemy fights small and in the shadows, without the knowledge of the People (until buildings get bombed), so too should we fight in a small, non-People-knowing way.

observer

I agree with Vision Aforethought 1:12 pm that ", if things really do fall apart to such an extent that 'civilization as we know it' comes to an end, pre-history has proven that by the nature of our species, the smart ones will survive to give 'Humanity II' another whirl..." The barbarians may well win -- but civilization will revive some day, even if not until 1000 years from now. THEREFORE, I believe it is essential that the West protect its art, literature, and music as much as is possible, in unassailable vaults where it can be preserved from destruction by the savages, such as those who destroyed the Buddhist statues.

tommy

and so it continues

Jos, Nigeria: Local Election Sparks Religious Rioting which Kills Hundreds

Hundreds of people were killed and an estimated 7,000 10,000 fled their homes in two days of rioting last week between mainly Muslim Hausa people and mainly Christian Berom people in Jos, the capital of Plateau State, Nigeria.
Senior Christian leaders in the state believe that the riots were coordinated and planned, and that the political events were used as a pretext for anti-Christian violence.

The Archbishop of Jos, Rt Rev. Ben Kwashi, issued an urgent plea for prayer on the first day of violence. Please pray for us in Jos, we are being attacked by Muslims. Mentioning the link with the local elections, he added, Why Christians must pay for this I do not know. On Saturday, he reported, The Muslims are attacking and burning this morning. It looks well coordinated. They are well armed with AK47 and pump machine guns. This morning they have been at Dogonduste. Quite a number of Christian homes have been burnt. We do not know how many have been killed.

The above is an extract from an email received from the Barnabus fund who try to alleviate the suffering of Christians throughout the world more often than not at the hands of islam

RudeBoy

Wage guerilla war against the MSM. A sustained campaign of extensive 'criminal damage' should do it.

Dixon

N
December 1st, 2008 4:03pm: "Look at your history, the British have faced similar guerrilla wars before and never has pure force worked."

"N" I agree with most of what you say but for that quoted part. In fact, that assertion is a cornerstone of the Bennite narrativc that has it we have no choice but agree to concessions to our enemy. In fact, it is simply wrong. In almost EVERY "insurgency" against the British empire, the use of "pure force" by The Empire triumphed. Where it wasnt by large force it was by vastly superior if small special force. For example, the war against Indonesia started in the Sixties by Dennis Healey and which was so effective that nobody even knew it had happenned until twenty years later.

The classic case is the Boer war. Yes, terms were eventually agreed with the Boers, but only after they had been utterly crushed. At first the Boers ran all over the British. But Kitechener invented a simple stategy...isolating the enemy from their community ( hence his concentration camps for all non-combatant Boers ). The Boers were then utterly crushed.

Similar ruthlessness put an end to the Mau Mau insurgency. In Aden, terorists were slaughtered in an industrial manner and it worked. In Oman, only tiny units of the SAS were required to utterly trounce the Communists. Malaya too, was a success.

But what these campaigns shared was RUTHLESSNESS. Without an ever intruding media the soldiers did their job, unfettered and, until the Mau Mau campaign, without reproach.

The introduction of almost live TV media in the 60's corresponded with the long run of counter-insurgency ( COIN ) failure. Starting with Viet Nam. The tactics employed by the Americans were modelled on their study of the British success in Malaya. They were virtually the same, among not dissimilar communities and against a very similar opponent. But they failed. Why could not the Americans succeed where the British had. Two reasons. One, they had the media breathing down their neck, fuelling the "home front" and sapping the will to fight. Secondly, the Americans were not in truth an Imperial people and lacked that peculiarly inhuman ruthlessness that is so essential for fighting such conflicts. A trait the Imperial British possessed in bucket fulls. As illustrated long before any of the above conflicts by the utter ruthless punishment of entire communities after the vanquishing of the Indian Mutiny.

These things are not nice. We have to decide, whether it is best to live with ones community inflicting great suffering on others, including their innocents, or go down without a fight. The attempt to steer between these poles quite clearly does not work.

Even Hollywoods Coppola understood this, as articulated through existentially fraught ramblings of Kurz in "Apocalypse Now

Adam B.

Straightchris, is that the same UN which has issued sondemnations of Israel 1000 times, but has never uttered a single reprimand, not ONE, to China over its invasion, and subsequent brutal oppression of, Tibet? The same UN which put Zimbabwe in charge of economic development (how sick is that?) and Libya in charge of Human Rights (which is sicker?) Ah, yes, such moral authority. What planet are you on? By the way, it is interesting that you are a case in point, someone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Resolution 242 also has obligations for every Arab despotic neighbour of Israel - bet you didn't know that, did you? Well, why would you, the BBC hasn't told you.

hadrian

There is a phrase for all revolutionary, fanatical, self-righteous fervour- 'fire in the minds of men'. And that fire doesn't burn much more vehemently than in Islam which , notwithstanding all delusional multi-culturalists, has nothing to recommend it whatsoever.
Anyone see the BBC2 programme this evening about young girls ( and boys) being taken by their own parents and families no less, from the U.K. to forsaken regions of 'the homeland' in Pakistan and forced into arranged ( and often underage marriages). God knows why it's taken the BBC so long to air this ( cowardice probably) especially as private groups of rescucers knew of this at leasy from the late Eighties. And we are asked to admire a religion and culture that engenders this inhumanity!! The hardnosed moslem wifey from Bradford with her praises for 'Allah', having her daughters married off, left one both saddened and hopping mad.Thankfully, it must be said there are many U.K. Asians who are nothing like this. However their clinging to Islam is a huge inner contradiction that we cannot pretend doesn't have consequences.

HarleyDavidson

I strongly disagree with the premise of Raphael Israeli and others. The fault is not with the Muslims. Muslims fight wars like wars have always been fought, bloody, dirty, and indiscriminately. Women, children, old, young, hospital, doesn't matter. All are fair game in war. That's the way it's always been fought throughout history. Killing civilians are merely a part of war. And media outlets, both local and international, are merely tools in the war itself.

We (west) have a different mentality. We like our conflicts (notice I did not use the word war) to be virtually blood free. Targeted strikes. Virtual battlefields with robots and technology. Night vision capabilities to find the elusive "bad guys" in a sea of like individuals all dressed the same. Israel comes to mind.

Recall the so called "war" in Lebanon? You know that "war" where Israel dropped leaflets to "warn women and children" away from their homes and neighborhoods when an upcoming Israeli air strike was immanent? Like the bad guys couldn't read? Is this insane or is it just me? Does anyone wonder why Israel lost this so called "war?" Or why Israel will lose the next "war" when you wage "war" to please the human rights groups and the media.

You see, Muslims understand this is how how we (west) play at conflict. We've become politically correct on the battlefield. When we ACCIDENTALLY strike civilians in the conflict zone it is no longer seen as a part of war but as a PR nightmare. Muslims have no such restrictions. No such PR nightmare.

One of our soldiers gets killed because we have "micromanaged" our soldiers to the point of being a target for every bad guy who wants to take a day off and kill a westerner. Of course we can't shoot back even when our guys know the village to a terror base. Why? Because we might kill a civilian. So we build more drones, more robots, more GPS devices to somehow single out a bad guy once in awhile. And that my fiend is a never ending losing idea whose time has come and gone.

Look, war is HELL. That is why "war" is the last option. Until we do we will continue to fight the Vietnam war all over again with the same restrictions as then. The bad guys live on that side of the line (Pakistan) but our soldiers cannot bring the war to them. Is this insane or is it just me again?

The west cannot win any war until and unless we wage WAR as we did in WW2. There is nothing asymmetrical about this "war." Because we (the west) are the targets in a one dimensional campaign. Until and unless we wage "war" like we are capable of waging we cannot win this "war." No amount of targeted missiles or bombs or strikes can do more than win a minor skirmish.

We have lost the will and the ability to fight wars. We did not go to war to win the "hearts and minds" of Germans. We did not go to war to "win the hearts and minds" of Japanese. We went to war to win. THEN we would deal with "hearts and mind" later. Period!

David M

India provides further proof that what Israel has stated before is correct. There has been a widely accepted idea that if Israel were to simply turn its back on history and allow the entire Middle East to fall under Islamic jurisdiction, terrorism would end. From the subtle suggestions of Condi Rice, the U.N., the B.B.C., this is what Israel has been urged to do (make concessions and appease a bully). Israel has always argued that if the Israelis did back down, terrorism towards other countries would continue just the same. Nothing would change. This situation in India is really pretty similar to the Beslan incident in Russia where Jihadist fanatics do their utmost to kill as many civilians as possible. Terrorism is a global threat and the aim is to impose a radical form of Islam on all countries, not just Israel. The only real obstacle to Islamic expansion would seem to be Israel, Russia and China. Obama may turn out to be tougher than many imagined but time will tell if he really does confront Iran to avoid WW3 or not.

Terry

A very incisive piece, Melanie. And spot on!! Forget the UN for any semblance of civil preservation - it is one of the most evil organisations in the world today, dominated by despotic nations and those who sympathise with islamofascist insurgencies. The UN is as antisemitic as the german nazis were. This mess won't be cleaned up quickly. The west is one soft underbelly - Afghanistan would be better off now if European armed forces were more strongly deployed instead of being kept in cotton wool lest local western electorates accuse their governments of war mongering. And all the points made by Melanie about education in the west and appeasement of minority cultures to the point of hating ourselves hold true here. The islamofascists know what they want. They have a belief. In the west we are reduced to discussing who will win the Idol Competition and where will we go to get blind drunk this weekend. Our spirituality has been abandonned entirely lest it upsets muslims.

The west is well on the way to losing this war. When it does, the left wing multiculturalist climate changologists will be the first to get sent off to face sharia 'justice'. Together with the Jews, who are blamed for everything that we are not to blame for.

Dixon

all things above notwithstanding, having just watched newsnight iagain find myself thinking the biggest threat to our civilisation is not islamism but the environmentalism of smooth speaking maniacs like that george monbiot.

yes, my shift key has finally bust1

Jack R

Yes, Melanie. The 'Jihadwatch/ Dhimmiwatch' websites provide some excellent material on the nature of Islamic jihad. It's unfortunate that the UK does not have such a linked site.
I've always been impressed with Prof Raphael Israel's phrase (and title of one of his books), 'Islamikaze'; it illustrates well the fanaticism of the Islamic jihadists.

Dixon

harley davidson...most of what you say tallies with what i said from another angle in an earlier comment. but i disagree about drones. the drones over pakistan are proving very effective. imagine the ability to follow an individual from the air for days as he travels about, logging who he meets ad where. waiting for a choice moment when hes in a meeting with his local commanders, then whoosh, all gone in one hellfire strike. all of this controlled from a bunker outside las vegas. this really is almost god-like power and it is being used for almost weekly strikes where boots on the ground would not be tolerated. oh, then when the funeral is held for the assassinated al q or teleban leaders a drone goes to that, waits for the villainous buddies to turn up and then zaps them as well. true story, already happenned.

please excuse lack of capitals.

An American

A good portion of US citizens have already turned against the news media.
And their stocks are showing it.
Some people were booing them and calling them communists at some Republican political rallies.
There's a stong belief among most Americans that the news media strongly supported and helped Obama win the presidency. It was so obvious that their editors didn't bother to deny it.
I don't believe we'll win this war unless we disempower the news media.
They have been wonderful propagandists for the jihadists. The news media was certainly responsible for encouraging Osama's goons to kill as many American soldiers as possible so that the US public's outcry would pressure Congress to force us to leave Iraq before winning the war...
The transgressions of the US and British news media goes on and on.
We need to have an out-right war against these liberal traitors. Stop buying their newspapers and magazines. Stop watching their TV stations. Stop buying the products they endorse and let the companys know why.
Some liberal US newspapers and TV stations are barely hanging on financially.
Let's help push them over the cliff.

barckobama

Attempts have been made to destroy Islamic terrorism with extreme force since the 7th century. The Christian crusaders, after they liberated Jerusalem in 1099, killed every Muslim they could find in the city (as well as Jews). Napoleon, when he invaded Egypt and the Levant in 1799 (pretending he was a Muslim to boot), had a policy of killing captured prisoners. He sanctioned the use of impaling for a failed Egyptian Muslim assassin. The British Army, in suppressing the Indian mutiny, used mutilation, torture and distintegration by cannon. The most successful counterterrorism programme of the 20th century was the British Army's repression of the Arab rebellion in the Palestine mandate in 1936-39. At the cost of no more than 200 British lives, around 10,000 Arab terrorists and their supporters were killed. The methods used, developed by the British Army in its unsuccessful war against Irish terrorists in 1919-21, included collective punishments, torture of suspects and assasinations.
The reason why more than 1,400 years of capturing, torturing, stabbing, impaling, burning, dismembering, shooting and bombing extremist Muslims and their families and supporters still isn't working is because Muslim extremists thrive on physical persecution and acively invite it. If there is any logic to the Mumbai atrocities, it might be that the perpetrators are trying to provoke attacks on uninvolved Muslims (and, perhaps, an all-out war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir). They hope the number of extremists will be thereby exponentially multiplied. Doing nothing is, of course, not an option. But history suggests that doing too much, or the wrong things, may be counterproductive.

HarleyDavidson

barckobama
December 2nd, 2008 7:20am

I wish I could agree with your premise, however, you are flat wrong. Saddam Hussein or Assad or any of the other Arab dictators don't stay in power because they are so lovable and humane. They stay in power by force and brutality. That's just the facts on the ground whether you like it or not.

Just as many Arabic wars are bankrolled by the Saudis and by the Iranians now-a-days. That too are the facts on the ground whether anyone cares for truth anymore.

The Muslims know full well the west doesn't have the guts to bring the war to them. That is also fact. You bring up the crusades that the west lost. The west lost because of lack of manpower and internal strife amongst the crusaders themselves. A lot like today. We build a fort in Afghanistan and then wait for the Taliban to bring the battle to us. We hold no ground and have too few men and material and no public will to do the job properly. At best we can admit to ourselves Afghanistan is an ad-hoc operation with the Europeans refusing to do any fighting at all. That is the facts on the ground. Period!

Brits and Americans and Canadians do the heavy lifting in Afghanistan and there are too few of them to do much outside of hold on to a few outlying forts. That's just the way the west fights. Muslims fight to win. Maybe not today but in time Muslims win because they have the will to do whatever it takes to win even if it means killing their own people and wiping out entire villages to keep their people in line. Reminds me of the Vietcong method of fighting to win at all costs.

If a nation's will to win isn't there then we lose. But have faith Barak Obama you are the Messiah. Magically, the Muslims will love you and throw down their weapons and peace will reign.

Personally speaking I'd have a whole lot of harsh words and lay down the law to the Saudis in no uncertain terms. They are the people who fund the entire terror infrastructure throughout the world. Iran is merely a bit player in this game. But we need the oil so it's back to politics as usual. And as Mumbai shows if you are a westerner, especially American, British, or Israeli, then you have a great big target on your back. Yet few in the west are capable of grasping the facts even as we watch and listen to the terrorists themselves. Somehow we pass them off as an anomaly or an extension of Survivor or some other television show we watch for enjoyment. The we slip back into the daily banality of our everyday lives as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.

Even as I write I know full well the next terror attack is already planned and we merely wait for where and when and who the target is this time. And there will be a next time. Then we go through this exercise all over again. We'll say the same things, again.

straightchris

Adam B,
Presumably you take the same view on: The International Court of Justice, Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem.
The concern here is not that Israel is better or worse than its neighbours, but a two state settlement based on UN Resolution 242 and the 1967 borders.
The comparisons with other states are separate issues, Zimbabwe and China could also use the same argument about Israel to justify their own crimes, the overwhelming majority of the World's community has voted repeatedly on Israel/Palestine and the US, Israel and some tiny Islands in Micronesia have consistently vetoed them (the "Negroponte doctrine"), this could be the explanation why there are so many of them.

barckobama

Harley Davidson.
I didn't say be nice to Muslim extremists.
History suggests the crusaders lost not because they were kind or weak. It was because they attacked the wrong people at the wrong time, thereby uniting divided Muslim opponents and undermining potential Muslim allies.
There are hundreds of Muslim sects (many Sunnis don't even think Shias are Muslims at all and deserve to be killed) and millions of different Muslim viewpoints. To the despair of the extremists, no leader since Mohammad has managed to unite Muslims and none ever will. The only thing that might do that is a common enemy. This is why the extremists are trying to provoke governments (in Muslim countries as much as elsewhere) to react precipitately and treat Muslims as if they all think the same thing, which they don't, won't and can't.

Gary O

How did RudeBoy's comment get through when my, considerably tame efforts by comparison, sometimes don't?

Anyway, RudeBoy is correct.

Charles

barckobama,

If you are going to use phrases like "History suggests.." then best to be pretty sure of your historical facts. So where did you get the 10,000 Arab terrorists killed by the British Army in 1936-9 Palestine from?

Dixon

The crusades were the tail end of the liberation of europe from 500 years of muslim rule. the crusades were analagous to the british invasion of germany at the conclusion of liberating europe from the nazis. as such, the crusades were initially a success.

regarding lack of caps i shall be getting a new keyboard asap.

Barackobama

Charles. There are no agreed figures since no one was counting bodies and there was no independent reporting, so the British Army was freer than it was in Ireland where it was under the scrutiny of the American media. It is usually said more than 5,000 Arab terrorists and their supporters were killed and 15,000 wounded. But whether it was 5,000 or 10,000, it was lots of very dead Arabs and Britain won.
What's your figure?

George

Straightchris

There is no such animal as "the 1967 borders". Borders are the demarcation line between two sovereign states. The line you are referring to is the 1949 armistice line. As with any armistice line, it is full of anomalies and is not to be sanctified as "the previous border".

Grumpy the Complainer

George - you go boy!
Can't seem to get my posts through today (moderated out)
Trying to explain rudimentry facts of life to Straight(but deluded)chris, but obviously some of the explanation viz a viz the UN (afro/arab talk fest) have for some reason been deemed - dare I say it politically incorrect.
Strange that this shoul happen here!
So George give it stick as they say

W.B.Harris

Many weren’t around in 1949 don’t know what it was like in the Middle East when Israel became a Nation. And shame on those who do remember and don’t care.

The Arabs weren’t concerned that the Jews had a new Nation… for the land was barren and useless. In fact they didn’t care at all.

Now that GOD’S blessings transformed that area by the sweat on the backs of those who had a vision and were willing to work, now the Arabs want what they don’t have.

Another thought of history seems to be reoccurring – When the upstart new world of what became the USA, the British don’t appreciate the freedom fighters from shooting from behind trees, shrubs, etc since battles up to then were fought out in the open.

Fast forward three hundred years, and people don’t understand the methods of terrorists in today’s ‘New War’. Hit and run tactics does create fear and produces quicker results to sway the masses than total front-to-front confrontations.

Infiltrate, then divide and conquer by appearing in a moderate costume. Inside are the true people or ideallogy that is contributing to our moral and morale downfall within our borders.

Please understand this… freedom is not free! And if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. United we can withstand anything, divided we’ll fall for nothing worthwhile. Your value bases – will determine the outcome of our country!

How many wake up warnings do you need? The next may just be your last and your redemption will draw neigh… and then it’s just like the song by Roy Orbison – “ITS OVER”!

The problems of today’s world aren’t just your neighbors, its all of ours. Rev. Martin Niemöller put it well by saying in 1934 –

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to
speak up.”

And again I say – freedom isn’t free. Will we be in this position tomorrow, if we don’t stand today?

‘ And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there
was no one left to speak up! ’

straightchris

The International Court of Justice said that the separation wall is illegal because it is not within Israel its borders.

They Know where the borders are and there is no dispute.

straightchris

The International Court of Justice said that the separation wall is illegal because it is not within Israel its borders.

They Know where the borders are and there is no dispute.

An American

Straightchris,
It's not your knowledge that has me worried. It's your lack of common sense.

Adam B.

Alternatively, straightchris, the number of these condemnations could be down to the obsessive hatred held for Jews in general by most of the 37 Muslim nations of the UN, who would be happy to see Israel destroyed, and the ancient knee-jerk hatred of the Jews coming out of several European nations. I also believe several African dictators, who starve their people whilst hoarding millions in Swiss bank accounts are very upset about Israel's refusal to lay down and die. As regards the International Court of Justice, I really couldn't care less. You see, you are impressed with these international bodies, and regard them as having some kind of moral authority. In my view, these bodies actually act to cover the grotesque crimes of half the despotic members of the UN, and instead find a scapegoat, Israel, on whose doorstep they lay all the ills of the world. I will believe in a true international justice when it is equally applied, and not simply driven by political agendas (especially of despotic regimes). I believe that in the case you cite, the chair was from China - ask yourself how does one rise to be a senior judge in a system which imprisons people for "political" crimes, or for following a faith deemed undesirable - and I should care about what he has to say about democratic Israel? Get real! There is really no such thing as international law, which is in effect merely a series of politically driven "interpretations". I note you haven't absorbed what I said about resolution 242, which always gets trotted out by those who haven't bothered to read it to condemn Israel - it equally applies to every Arab neighbour of Israel, yet you don't seem so upset about that, thus proving my point - politically driven "interpretation"!

stanley Jerusalem

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/ottolenghi/45051?cp=1#comment-2363201

"Tom Paine" writes

If the Muslim world were to disarm along its borders with Israel, nothing would happen except increased trade.

If Israel were to disarm along its borders with the Muslim world, there would be a bloodbath from one end of the country to the other.

Fools never even notice this point.

straightchris

An American,

I have only mentioned one view and that was: "If we don't have some kind of rule of law then we lack moral authority."

The other comments are what I understand to be straightforward facts.

I can't see how what happened in Mumbai can provide an excuse for collective punishment in Palestine, there were reasons why Hamas and Hizbullah were established and it has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.

Hamas were encouraged into power by Likud to fight Fatah.

Hizbulla didn't exist prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

The US funded Fatah to overthrow Hamas in July 2007.

The Bush administration had funded radical Sunni groups some of whom had ties to Al-Qaeda.

An American

straightchris,

Please take the time to read Adam B's very thoughtful response to you.

All of the wrongs you stress will not be righted by an 'International Court of Justice'. God help us. Just look at the injustices happening at the United Nations.

As an American, I don't want US hating judges from US hating countries concocting laws that my country would have to abide by.

I believe that Americans will absolutely never give up our very freedoms and give our country over to any kind of ridiculous 'International Court of Justice'.

Adam B.

straightchris, oh dear. What on earth are you talking about "collective punishment in Palestine" linked with Mumbai? What is the link, other than the genocidal impulse of Islamists to kill? And aren't rockets aimed deliberately at civilians in Sderot "collective punishment"? You tell me how Israel can stop suicide bombers. And what is your source for claiming Likud likes Hamas? What poison are you reading?

Adam B.

straightchris, this is actually obscene. Innocent people are hunted, tortured and murdered in Mumbai in a planned attack by Islamist neonazis, the only Jewish target for 1000 miles is singled out (Jewish, not Israeli, and there I was being told that these people are only anti-Zionist not anti-semitic) and you turn the whole thing into a further attack on the Jews and the west. It seems you are able to blame everyone except those who actually did the torturing and pulled the triggers. Sick, sick, sick!

An American

Adam B.
Give it up...you'll never reach anyone like straightchris.
He wants a perfect socialist world. But the world is full of imperfect humans.
To control these imperfect humans who won't conform to a perfect socialist world...you must have someone in charge. And that someone will be a heartless dictator like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, Hugo Chavez, Osama Bin Ladin, etc.
People like staightchris start out by meaning well. But it all ends up with millions upon millions of human suffering and deaths.
He just doesn't get it.

Herbert Thornton

I disagree that we are seeing a new kind of warfare. It seems new only because most of us grew up in times when the kind of hit-and-run warfare now being again employed by the Jihadists seemed to have become obsolete.

Sir John Keegan has pointed out that hit-and-run warfare - when raiders materialised from the deserts, wreaked destruction, and then retreated to the security of their deserts has been practised by the desert peoples, Muslim Arabs in particular, for many centuries.

As to how to counter those tactics, as Dixon has said, the essential ingredient of action to counter them is ruthlessness. Dixon mentions the successful application of ruthlessness by the British in times past, but it was not new even then. As an earlier example of ruthlessness being effective, we can look back to the time of Rome's conflict with Carthage. It ended, with Carthage being so utterly destroyed that the land where the city had stood was ploughed over by the Roman victors. It was the equivalent, for its time, of using the nuclear bomb.

For the time being, the civilised world has lost, as another poster has said, the will to be ruthless. That loss of will makes the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons to counter the current Jihad, very unlikely, while guaranteeing that the jihad will continue.

But eventually, given enough intolerable provocation, the civilised world may recover the will to be ruthless. Indeed, we may be on the verge of seeing it again, if India concludes that there is no other way to neutralise the constant aggression against it from Pakistan.

straightchris

I didn't make the connection between Mumbai and "Islamist neonazis" Melanie did.
To say that I don't care about the lives of innocent people is wrong.

Here's the article on Likud:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/hanania46.html

Fatah and Hamas 2007:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

US funding Al-Qaeda.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly

anglicus

Now I follow no religious beliefs, but this contradicts everything we see in the media.
Christmas in Iran
http://photosforpeace.com/node/265

Christmas in Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3194238,00.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6757259.html

Adam B.

straightchris, your point being what? That Israel and the US are to blame, and not the murderers themselves? Anything but that! How grotesque. And you did make the connection - " can't see how what happened in Mumbai can provide an excuse for collective punishment in Palestine..." What on earth is that supposed to mean? There is indeed a connection, one you refuse to acknowledge - that in Israel and Mumbai, the murderers of innocents are anti-Semitic, hateful Islamist radicals. Why are you so blind? Or do you simply refuse to see?

phil

straightchris your quote

"Hamas were encouraged into power by Likud to fight Fatah.
Hizbulla didn't exist prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982"-

do I need to say a rose by any other name -i could change my name to bob ,do you think I would be a different person -many here have engaged with you .perhaps you mean well ,who knows ?but you do talk rubbish -I think thats to the point isnt it.At times here I wish I could just say "aw shutup man",but Pete will not allow me ,so write on ,you are entitled to your view and you may eventually" get it ."

straightchris

Adam B,

I agree the murders of Jews in Mumbai was anti-Semitic.

The whole idea of this global war on Islamic terror is misleading.
Ehud Olmert has said recently that he would want to see a two state solution, based on what is desired above.
We all, as rational people, want peace and the instruments to achieve this are already in place.

India, Pakistan and Kashmir now need diplomacy and a good exchange of solid intelligence in order to prevent another war.

The attack on the Jewish centre in Mumbai may have been a deliberate ploy to drag Israel into the conflict, if the Israeli Police feel a need to investigate further into the murder of their nationals then that is a matter for Israel, India and ideally Pakistan.

The main suspects are: Dawood Ibrahim, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed and Maulana Masood Azhar.

An American

Herbert Thornton,
I agree with your premise. Sooner of later the western world will have had enough and will throw liberal politically-correct nonesense aside and leave scorched earth behind in the countries that have given birth and/or protection to all Islamic terrorists. It will be devastating but necessary.

Bull

"the media should not be allowed to the battlefield until the end of hostilities. Perhaps it is better for governments to be accused of obstructing the media than to let them document the asymmetry between the established strong defenders of freedom and the weaker terrorists in the field."

Could not agree more -- and especially in the case of the BBC who prefers to take any side as long as it can continue to justify and agressively pursue it's anti Christ agenda.

John Miller

I am a former senior intelligence officer and sometime writer on terrorism under an assumed name for obvious reasons. There is nothing particularly new about this type of attack, despite Walid Phares' comments on the subject. It was a terrorist mission, not just a suicide mission as claimed by some. It was directed specifically against Westerners but in the name of God, let us not forget the terrible toll of Indian citizens.

The Indian authorities have to lift their game in counter-terrorist operations and perhaps selectively strike at LeT camps inside Pakistan. For my money LeT is as big a threat as Al Qaida and I don't need Gordon Brown to tell me that.