Skip to comments.Where's Winston?
Posted on 04/03/2007 6:31:13 AM PDT by Truth29
IT'S IRAN 15, BRITS 0 IN THE GULF
April 3, 2007 -- THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that members of Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors. Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. (snip)
You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but you wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper fi" means something. And our Aussie allies would be just as tough. What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government's program to gut the U.K. military - grounding planes, taking ships out of service and deactivating army units - also ripped the courage from the breasts of those in uniform?
The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading for tea and sympathy . . . Ma, say it ain't so!
Meanwhile, back at No. 10 "Downer" Street, British politicians are more upset that President Bush described their sailors and Marines as "hostages" than they are with the Iranians. Okay, Lord Spanker and Lady Fanny - what exactly are those sailors and Marines? Package tourists? Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've now got another synonym for cowardice.
John Bull has been cowed. By a pack of unshaven thugs. And the Britannia that ruled the waves is waving goodbye.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Let me suggest that a gun barrel in your ear makes you highly cooperative.
Agree. If the reports that the ROEs were that the British could never fire first are accurate, that made the sailors and marines hostage bait.
Venezuelan News and Analysis - www.vcrisis.com | printer friendly version
Islamic Fundamentalism according to Winston S. Churchill III
Editor’s note: Seldom I disregard the editorial policy of dealing exclusively with issues of my country. The recent escalation of violence in the Middle East against Israel however merits our attention for the issue goes far beyond a dispute between the Islamofundamentalists of Hezbollah and Israel; it isn’t about Israel’s future and safety anymore, rather a ‘holy war’ between deranged people and freedom; between terror and the values and liberties the civilised and rational inhabitants of this world hold dear. Someone sent the following speech -originally published March 03, 2006, which I have decided to post for it couldn’t have expressed my feelings on the subject better.
RALEIGH Winston S. Churchill III maintains that Islamic fundamentalism is as destructive as the malevolent “isms” of the 20th century: Nazism, Communism and Facism. In a speech on Feb. 10 at the John Locke Foundation’s anniversary dinner, the grandson of Winston Churchill urged the West to stay the course in the fight against extremist Islam.
Here is the text of his speech:
It is both an honor and a pleasure to be your guest here tonight and to have the privilege of addressing the John Locke Foundation. First and foremost, may I congratulate you for honouring the memory of John Locke, who was very much involved in the establishment of the Governments of the Carolinas and who, most important of all, was one of the great philosophers of the English-speaking world.
Lockes message the vital importance of resisting authoritarianism is as relevant to the strife-torn times of the world in which we live, as it was in the strife-torn times of the 17th Century. Authoritarianism constantly rears its ugly head, even within our own societies on both sides of the Atlantic, in so many guises and disguises, and in every field, be it religion, government or the military.
At its most extreme, authoritarianism is exemplified by the isms of the 20th Century Communism, Fascism and Nazism. The Fascists and Nazis were responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million human beings, while more than 50 million are estimated to have been murdered by Stalin and the Russian Communists, while Mao-Tse-Tung and the Chinese Communists are believed to have accounted for some 80 million.
But today a new challenge another ism confronts us, and that is the challenge of Islamic fundamentalism. Extremist Islam has declared war on the rest of the world, as evidenced by their ruthless attacks across the globe overwhelmingly targeted at innocent civilians. Beside the outrage of 9/11, the bombings in Madrid, in Bali, in London and, most recently, in Jordan come to mind.
Those who have declared jihad against the West, and Western values, such as freedom of speech, are doing all in their power to mobilize against us the large Muslim communities living in our midst. In North America, there are an estimated six million Muslims in the USA, plus a further three-quarter million in Canada; while in the European Union, they number an estimated 20 million, including nearly 2 million in Britain. Unlike most other categories of migrant, the Muslims are reluctant to assimilate and, all too often, wish to pursue their own agenda.
Unbelievably, Washington is urging Europe to admit Turkey to the EU. Were that to happen, the Muslim population of Europe would skyrocket to 100 million an act, in my view, of consummate folly. Already Judeo-Christian Europe is under siege from a tidal wave of Islamic immigration. The admission of Turkey would hasten its demise. While I have a great regard for the Turks, the only democracy in the Muslim world and stalwart members of NATO, I am firmly opposed to their admission to the EU. I would accord them most-favoured nation status, but not the right to settle in Western Europe and become EU citizens.
The scale of the problem confronting Europe today is epitomized by France, which has a Muslim community of some 6 million, or 10 percent of its population. But, if you take the population aged 20 and below, the figure rockets to 30 percent, such is the birthrate of the immigrant communities. In other words, within one further generation, France will be a Muslim country a truly horrifying prospect.
At the same time it is vital that, in our pursuit of the men and women of terror we do all we can, not to alienate these large Muslim communities already established among us. For, without the active support of the Muslim communities, we shall never excise this deadly cancer in our midst.
Intriguingly, the dangers of extremist Islam were foreseen by Winston Churchill all of 85 years ago, as I discovered to my amazement, while compiling my most recent book NEVER GIVE IN! The Best of Winston Churchills Speeches.
Churchill is, of course, well-known for his gift of prescience and, specifically, for being the first to warn of the menace of Hitler and Nazism as early as 1932, and of the Soviet threat in his famous Iron Curtain speech in 1946 in Fulton, Mo. But how many know that he also warned the world of the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism? I certainly did not!
On 14 June 1921, hard on the heels of the Cairo Conference, at which he had presided over the re-shaping of the Middle East, including the creation of modern day Iraq, he warned the House of Commons:
A large number of [Saudi Arabias King] Bin Sauds followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europes] religious wars.
The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.
It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina
In Churchills day, of course, the viciousness and cruelty of the Wahabis was confined to the Saudi Arabia peninsula, and their atrocities were directed exclusively against their fellow Muslims, whom they held to be heretics for not adhering to the Wahabi creed but not anymore.
Today the combination of the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia and the supine weakness of the Saudi royal family which as the price for not having their own behavior subjected to scrutiny and public criticism by these austere, extremist clerics has bank-rolled the Wahabi fundamentalist movement, and given these fanatical zealots a global reach to their vicious creed of hatred and extremism.
The consequence has been that the Wahabis have been able to export their exceptionally intolerant brand of Islamic fundamentalism from Mauritania and Morocco on Africas Atlantic shores, through more than two dozen countries including Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East, to as far afield as the Philippines and East Timor in the Pacific. This is the stark challenge that today confronts the Western world and I fear it will be with us, not just for a matter of years, but perhaps even for generations.
Just in the past two weeks the temperature in the Middle East has risen markedly with three significant developments. First, we have seen the wild and furious reaction, whipped up by firebrand clerics throughout the Islamic world, to the publication some five months ago in a Danish newspaper of a cartoon depicting the prophet with a smoking bomb in his turban, as tattered suicide bombers were being greeted at the Muslim pearly gates by a gate-keeper shooing them away and shouting: Get lost! Weve run out of Virgins! The fury that this mild piece of satire engendered, epitomizes the clash of civilizations that is the key factor confronting us today.
Secondly, the stunning election victory in the Palestinian elections of Hamas a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel provided a rude shock to those in Washington who naively imagined that democracy would provide the answer to the problems of the Middle East. For many within the Beltway, free elections have been an article of faith, even though it was in a free election that Hitler first came to power, before establishing his Nazi dictatorship.
Such is the anger of the Moslem world against the West, inflamed by extremist clerics and fanned by the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia television networks, that truly democratic and free elections would result in the election of fundamentalist governments throughout the Muslim world. It is a frightening fact, that in 50 Muslim countries countless millions of Muslims tell pollsters that they regard Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as more trustworthy than President Bush.
The third and by far the most serious development, is the decision of the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to remove the U.N. seals from its nuclear research facilities. He it is who not only denies the Holocaust ever happened, but who declares that Israel is a tumor that should be wiped off the map! Some Western analysts state that the Iranian president doesnt really mean what he says. There were, of course, many who said just that of Hitlers Mein Kampf, and we saw the result.
Having reported events including two wars in the Middle East over the past 45 years, I think I know the Israelis well enough to say that Israel is not about to wait to find out whether or not the Iranian president means what he says. In 1981 Israel took decisive steps to take out Saddam Husseins Osirak nuclear facility with a long-range air strike. I do not see how she can fail to do the same in the case of the even greater threat posed to Israel by a nuclear-armed Iran.
This time it will not be so easy, as the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear facilities across 16 sites and built them deep underground, making them far more difficult to attack. But with 500 bunker-busting bombs from the U.S. and precision-guidance technology they will certainly make a mess of the place. The whole Muslim world will be enflamed with outrage and Irans reaction may well be to deploy 100,000 guerrilla fighters to Iraq to fight the Americans and British not a happy thought.
But even before these developments, siren voices could already be heard on Capitol Hill, raising the cry: Bring the Boys home. I tell you: Nothing could be more disastrous than if, at this juncture, the United States were to cut and run. It would, at a stroke, undermine those forces of moderation we are seeking to establish in power, betray our troops as they fight a difficult, but necessary, battle, and break faith with those of our soldiers who have sacrificed their lives to establish a free Iraq.
Gravest of all, we should be handing a victory of gigantic proportions to our sworn enemies. Let no one imagine that by pulling out of Iraq, the threat will simply evaporate. On the contrary, it will redouble, it will come closer to home and our enemies will have established in Iraq the very base that, by our defeat of the Taliban, we have denied them in Afghanistan. We shall see a desperately weakened United States, with its armed forces undermined and demoralized, increasingly at the mercy of our terrorist enemies.
Precipitate withdrawal is the counsel of defeatism and cowardice, which, if it holds sway, will immeasurably increase the dangers that today confront, not just America, but the entire Western world. It is something for which we shall pay a terrible price in the years ahead. When great nations go to war and they should do so only as a last resort they must expect to suffer grievous losses and must commit to war with an unconquerable resolve to secure victory.
In Iraq the United States has lost some 2,200 men and women, Britain just over 100. Compare that to the first day of the Battle of the Somme 1 July 1916 when the British Army in a single day, nay, before breakfast, lost 55,000 men killed, wounded or missing in action. Did we talk of quitting?
What has happened to the mighty United States? Is it going soft? Are the elected representatives of the American people ready to surrender to those who threaten their homeland indeed their civilian population with death and destruction? I pray that they are not, and I call to mind the words of my grandfather, addressing the Canadian Parliament on New Year’s Day 1941, in which referring to the British nation dwelling around the globe, but it applies equally to our American cousins today when he declared:
We are a tough and hardy people! We have not travelled across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains & across the prairies, because we’re made of sugar candy!
In conclusion, I would remind you and especially the legislators on Capitol Hill of Winston Churchills words to the House of Commons on becoming prime minister in May 1940, which applies every bit as much to the situation that confronts us today.
You ask: What is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror. However long or hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
Provided we have the courage to stay the course, I am convinced that we can, in the end, prevail. Any alternative is too terrible to contemplate. There are no quick, easy solutions; on the contrary it will be a long, hard slog. But more leadership is needed from on high and, above all, more guts and determination if we are to see this through to victory.
Let us fight the good fight and let us fight it together! How pleased my grandfather would be to know that 40 years on from his death the Anglo-American alliance is still strong and that British and American soldiers stand shoulder-to-shoulder in Iraq and in Afghanistan, confronting the peril of the hour! Long may we stand together! God bless America!
© by Vcrisis.com & the author
Well, look on the bright side. They haven’t converted to Islam...yet.
“Jingoism aside, I can’t imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion.”
My fear is that before long, we will find out if you are right or not. As Iran continues to test the waters and meets no resistance, it is only a matter of time until U.S. troops are being accused, filmed and questioned by Iran while we stand by and wonder what to do.
How quickly these folks have forgotten the Hainan Island incident in April 2001 -- in which the crew of a U.S. E-3 surveillance aircraft was detained for ten freakin' days by the Chinese government over something that involved far less hostility than this. It's also worth noting that those U.S. military personnel were released only after the U.S. government apologized profusely for violating Chinese airspace.
Well, remember that it was only after a long time, and several incredibly wussy PMs that Winston came to the fore. They had to endure Baldwin and Chamberlain before they got Winston. I’d say we are in the Baldwin period now.
Well, perhaps they should have alerted the Cornwallis that they were going to push their boats thru the encircling Iranian water craft ... with weapons loaded and cocked. The moment the Iranians opened fire, hose the Iranians ... with the Cornwallis nearby with supporting fire the Iranians would have paid a heavy price. There would have been British casualties but not the embarrassing hostage mess they have today. It will take a long while before the British Navy, particularly the Royal Marines, live down this debacle.
I’m guessing that the HMS Cornwall didn’t put one across the bow of the Iranians because “Topsy” Turney had recently given birth to a baby girl and Political Correctness strikes again.
"Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've now got another synonym for cowardice."
"In Heaven, Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch."
"Pretty sad to think that the last real warriors fighting under the Union Jack are soccer hooligans."
And the coup de gras:
"Was Margaret Thatcher the last real man in Britain?"
Ouch! That last one is going to leave a mark>
The Brits had a helo up from the HMS Cornwall, but after determining that the Indian freighter was friendly the helo returned to the ship, leaving the boarding party completely exposed in the event of an attack. One thing has yet to be explained. The HMS Cornwall is said to have tracked the boarding party using GPS. The question is were they in radio contact with them, and did the sailors and marines request assistance?
I can not imagine US naval forces not responding to the same type of situation with deadly force to repel the attack. After all our standing rules of engagement include an inherent right to self defense. Am I wrong about that?
I’ve been say8ig this for a while: What would Churchill do?
This constitutes an act of war against Britain and under the NATO treaty, that is an attack on us as well. (Not to metion that the phony holy men are funding and arming the terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq.)
We should take out Iran’s oil refinery, bomb their nuclear facilities, blockade and mine their harbors, and arrest their entire UN delegation as spies and send them to Gitmo. (Yes, the entire delegation. Everyone in the building.)
They were in touch with the Cornwallis, which was standing off some two miles away ... the boarding crew asked for instructions and were told to stand by while the Cornwallis contacted Admiralty in London. The delay was long enough to allow the Iranians to take the British sailors and marines hostage.
Which we hadn't done, and the President knew it. Just another blot on the Bush record. These Commies seize our plane and our people illegally and we apologize to them for it! It makes NO sense.
But it's a good indication of why nobody is doign anythign for these soldiers. Can you say Embassy hostages? How about USS Pueblo?
Two good reasons why we can't keep appeasing these tyrannical terrorists.
"Guests of the Iranian people."
Actually, you're wrong on this one. The U.S. did not apologize for violating Chinese airspace during the collision between the two aircraft -- we apologized for violating Chinese airspace when the E-3 made an emergency landing on Chinese soil.
The whole thing was just a fabricated resolution to the situation that allowed all parties involved to cover their @sses politically without ever admitting to any serious wrongdoing in the first place.
Was this the Royal Navy & Marines or not?? They behaved like unarmed Fish & Game Wardens at the city park.
So it's better to have her taken hostage, so the Mad Mullahs can rape her?
Maybe the British military should draft them.
This is different. The U.S. aircraft was a frickin E-3 and not in a war zone. Youre comparing apples to oranges.
That’s exactly my point. Even under those relatively benign circumstances the Chinese still held them for ten days.
If you ask me, it looks like they’re not exactly getting tortured over there. They don’t defend themselves, they issue propaganda confessions at the drop of a hat...
There really isn’t anything left to say at this point. Their nation is teetering if this is all they’ve got at this point.
Bump for later . . .
Thanks BluH2o. I was not aware of that.
I agree. Ralph Peters is an absolute idiot. Perhaps we Brits should have written pieces such as this when US troops refused convoy duty in Iraq:
Or when the US bugged out of Somalia, Beirut, Vietnam etc. This man is insulting every British soldier serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is not fit to tie the boot-laces of British personnel. Obviously, his journalism is so shabby that he deems fit to neglect the dozens of gallantry awards given to British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As to giving up without a fight-we are are not at war with Iran. Furthermore, these personnel were climbing down a boarding ladder into two inflatible craft when surrounded by Iranian speedboats. I would like to see Ralph ‘Rambo’ Peters reaction in such circumstances. The commander obvioudly took the decision to try and de-escalate the situation. If it is deemed that he took the wrong call, he’ll be disciplined on return to Britain. If the Iranians had been Iraqi insurgents, I’m sure that the British would have defended themselves resolutely.
Name, rank and number are the domain of the POW. British troops have been told to go along with the Iranian propaganda, because the wider world knows that it is utter nonsense anyway. In one of the recent vids the British sailor looks like he’s taking the whole exercise for what it is- a joke.
I would like to see Mr. Peters make his comments to face of serving Royal Marines. Presumably he’ll still be saying ‘semper fi’ as his teeth are knocked out?
The British have had no contact with hostages, they've taken it upon themselves to apologies to the Iranians for something they didn't do. When the hostages are released I suspect there will be ramifications ... as in less than honorable discharges for the lower ranks and career ending court martial for the officers.
Liberals were in charge. You'll find no end to the criticizing on this site. It happens when weak men are in charge.
"As to giving up without a fight-we are are not at war with Iran"
Taking your troops in international waters was an act of war. Apparently they're at war with you, and you don't seem to recognize it.
I guess we can’t all be tigers like Ralph.
This one is a case in point. We have no idea how much the videos are a product of clever Iranian propaganda and how much a reflection of a "surrender" on the part of the hostages. We do know that the rules of engagement left them vulnerable and their commander powerless to help them short of disobeying a direct order. Those should be addressed. We don't know anything beyond that, and to declare that they've surrendered and collaborated while they're still in captivity and helpless to defend themselves is frankly an act of cowardice. Peters knows better.