Here’s a special hat tip for blog quote of the day to John Little at Blogs of War , who scored the following little snark:
Of course one can expect a few hiccups as France transitions to an Islamic state[.]
Priceless, yet sadly too close to the truth. John carries on his coverage as the riots stretch into yet another night.
Ever one to be begging to stay in the crosshairs of the reticle, Iran has issued a clear view of its road map to Mideast peace — the obliteration of Israel.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Wednesday that Israel is a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the map” – fiery words that Washington said underscores its concern over Iran’s nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad’s speech to thousands of students at a “World without Zionism” conference set a hard-line foreign policy course sharply at odds with that of his moderate predecessor, echoing the sentiments of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution.
The United States said Ahmadinejad’s remarks show that Washington’s fears about Iran’s nuclear program are accurate.
“I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters in Washington. “It underscores the concerns we have about Iran’s nuclear intentions.”
Ahmadinejad also condemned Iran’s neighbors which seek to break new ground in their relations with Israel. “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury,” state-run television quoted him as saying.
Relations between Israel and several Persian Gulf states have been thawing amid Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Bahrain announced in September it was ending a decades-old law banning trade ties with Israel. In October, Qatar said it was donating $6 million to help build a soccer stadium for a mixed Arab-Jewish team, the first such financial assistance by an Arab state for any town inside Israel.
Israel has been at the forefront of nations calling for an end to Iran’s nuclear program, which the United States and many others in the West say is aimed at acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Iran insists the program is for generating electricity.
Referring to Palestinian suicide bomb attacks in Israel, Ahmadinejad said: “there is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.”
Yup. With their continuing nuclear two-step with European powers, the Iranian leaders almost seem to be playing for another Osiraq. Are they that certain of their defenses?
“Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government,” said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs. “He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s.”
Reacting to the Iranian president’s speech, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar “speak openly about destroying the Jewish state … and it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions.”
Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said Ahmadinejad’s remarks harmed Iran.
“Such comments provoke the international community against us. It’s not to Iran’s interests at all. It’s harmful to Iran to make such a statement,” he said.
Several world governments issued statements criticizing the Iranian’s remarks, including Britain, Canada and Germany.
In Madrid, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos summoned Iran’s ambassador to protest Ahmadinejad’s comments. Moratinos said he rejected the remarks in the strongest possible terms.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Baptiste Mattei also condemned the remarks “with the utmost firmness.”
Obviously, if you’ve drawn a scowl from the French and the Spanish, you’ve probably crossed the barrier of international etiquette. That said, what the hell are France and Spain really going to do, scowl more sternly?
As Iran and Syria both work to further instability in Iraq, it seems the two now hold themselves as rivals over the Israeli issue, each jostling to be the current leading Islamic nation in the ongoing effort to push the Jews into the sea.
The Brits are celebrating the bicentennial of their great naval victory at Trafalgar in grand fashion.
A thousand beacons lit the skies last night as Britain remembered its fleet at Trafalgar and celebrated its greatest naval victory.
The Queen lit the first beacon on the dockside in Portsmouth in front of Lord Nelson’s flagship, Victory.
Flames shot 30ft into the air and were the signal to light beacons in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and at Nelson’s birthplace at Burnham Thorpe, Norfolk.
Hundreds more were lit across the country, mirroring the beacons of 1805. Had Nelson lost the battle, they would have stood ready to give warning of an invasion by Napoleon’s armies.
But yesterday they marked the beginning of a weekend of celebrations, taking in hundreds of parties and services.
Robert at The Llama Butchers has much more on the battle, including links to others blogging on the matter. Meanwhile, his fellow Butcher Steve chips in with an alternative look at Lord Nelson.
There was a startling and disturbing revelation today concerning the recent Islamist attack in southern Russia — the perpetrators were mainly locals, not Chechen as initially suspected.
The diehard gang of Muslim extremists responsible for last week’s attack on the southern Russian city of Nalchik consisted mainly of local militants intent on creating a strict Islamic state independent of Moscow, according to security sources in the region.
The disclosure that the gunmen were not sent from the war-torn republic of Chechnya but belonged to a group from Kabardino-Balkaria, the Russian republic of which Nalchik is the capital, will be of great concern to the Kremlin.
It provides alarming evidence that far from dying down — as claimed by President Vladimir Putin — the bloody Chechen conflict is spreading.
“Most of the militants who were killed and those caught alive are local,†said an officer with the Nalchik anti-terrorism police unit. “ The ferocity of the attacks has shocked the city.â€
The onslaught, which turned the town of 280,000 into a war zone, was the most daring raid by pro-Chechen Islamic militants since last year’s Beslan school siege in which 330 hostages were killed. It came less than a month before parliamentary elections in Chechnya, hailed by Putin as evidence that the region is becoming stable.
The 24 hours of gun battles in which several police stations and other security forces buildings were attacked left at least 108 dead, including more than 60 militants. Nearly 30 others were detained.
Most of the gunmen were thought to be members of Yarmuk, a homegrown fundamentalist group that the local authorities twice claimed to have destroyed.
Go read for a detailed look at the attack.
UPDATE: Mac Powell at In the Bullpen has more on the story, including a link to an interview with a hostage that gives an insight into the chilling mindset of the Islamist terrorists.
Radical elements of the Religion o’ Peace are at it again, and yet again Russia is facing the brunt.
Islamic militants staged coordinated attacks on police and government buildings in the southern Russian city of Nalchik today, as fresh violence spilled over from war-torn Chechnya to the broader North Caucasus region.
By early evening, 12 police, 12 civilians and more than 50 guerrillas had died in the day’s fighting, authorities said.
As night fell, militants were holding several people hostage in a Nalchik police station, Russian First Deputy Interior Minister Alexander Chekalin told reporters. Three guerrillas were also barricaded in a souvenir shop, he said.
Chekalin estimated the number of militants involved in the attacks at a maximum of 100, but other officials said there could be up to 300 involved.
Russian President Vladimir V. Putin ordered the city of 235,000 be cordoned off to prevent militants from escaping overnight.
“The president gave an instruction that not one gunman should be allowed to leave the town, and those who are armed and putting up resistance must be wiped out,” Chekalin said after meeting Putin, the Russian news agency Interfax reported.
I’ve asked before, but isn’t it about time that we acknowledge that Russia is facing that same expansionist Islamic threat that the U.S. and its allies are fighting elsewhere?
Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit is all over this story here and here.
That Simon Wiesenthal, the famed Nazi hunter who died Tuesday, lived to age 96 is an amazing testament to human endurance. Eighty-nine of his relatives perished in the Holocaust. As he was moved from concentration camp to concentration camp — 12 in all — he tried to kill himself twice. He was lined up three times to be shot, but the gunmen missed. When liberated, he weighed less than 100 pounds.
Wiesenthal’s miraculous survival spurred the obsessive mission that consumed two-thirds of his life. “The realization that I had remained alive while so many others — better ones, cleverer ones, more decent ones — had died … almost seemed to me an offense against justice,” he wrote. “I could restore the balance only by ensuring that the dead received justice.”
His mission should have been straightforward, given the enormity of the Holocaust: the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews in World War II, along with millions of others, in ways that almost defy imagination. But it wasn’t.
Read.
Wiesenthal’s war
Simon Wiesenthal’s death is not just the Jewish people’s loss. He should be sincerely mourned by the entire civilized world – by anyone still dedicated to justice, unafraid to acknowledge humanity’s dark past and determined to learn its lessons.
Today, 60 years after history’s single greatest premeditated crime, it’s not only the inexorable march of time that dims universal memories but concerted efforts to diminish or altogether deny the Holocaust. Even immediately after the wholesale industrialized slaughter, the world wasn’t in a mood to remember, much less punish. Indeed the great powers, embroiled in their Cold War, facilitated the escape of prominent henchmen.
It was this indifference that Wiesenthal took on, almost quixotically. He was alone, without money or power, himself the surviving inmate of several concentration camps, who lost 89 members of his own family. The Galician-born architect could have understandably, like many survivors, devoted his energies to rebuilding his personal life.
Instead Wiesenthal appointed himself advocate of the tortured, the starved, the degraded and the slain. He vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice and not allow the world to forget.
Seriously, read.
If, after those two reads you think any diminishing of the Holocaust would be improbable, I would like to point you toward Raven at And Rightly So! and her look at a recent development in England. Simon Wiesenthal built a deserved legacy from the Holocaust and its perpetrators — it is now up to others to protect the history of that tragedy. Such protection is the only wall against another reoccurrence, whatever group may be the target.
A group of bishops from the Church of England have issued a report suggesting the need for a chorus of mea culpas and heart-tugging regrets over the Iraqi theater in the war against Islamist terror. They also want to top that off with a possible group hug.
Church of England bishops have suggested Christian leaders apologise to Muslim leaders for the war in Iraq.
A report from a working group of bishops says the war was one of a “long litany of errors” relating to Iraq.
As the government is unlikely to offer an apology, a meeting of religious leaders would provide a “public act of institutional repentance”, it said.
It urges a “truth and reconciliation” meeting, but acknowledges that arranging it could be difficult.
The report, entitled Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11, was written by a working group of the Church of England’s House of Bishops.
It suggests the meeting would be an opportunity to apologise for the way the West has contributed to the situation in Iraq, including the war.
The Church of England has criticised the war, saying it was not a “just war”.
But a dilemma now exists for those within the Church – to pull out of Iraq without a stable democracy in place would be irresponsible, but to stay suggests collusion with a “gravely mistaken” war, the bishops said.
But if collusion was a necessary evil, the report says, there needs to be a degree of public recognition of the West’s responsibility for the present situation.
“It might be possible for there to be a public gathering…at which Christian leaders meet with religious leaders of other, mainly Muslim, traditions, on the basis of truth and reconciliation, at which there would be a public recognition of at least some of the factors mentioned [in the report].”
One of the co-authors of the report, Bishop Richard Harries, explains his thoughts on the report in this column. Sifting through, I found the following gem:
Our report deals not only with the threat of terrorism but with American power, perceived by many Muslims and others to be the major threat to world order today. While US power is a reality that has to be frankly faced, its mixture of deluded self-righteousness and genuine altruism make it ambiguous.
As is well known, President Bush gets much of his support from a particular Christian constituency with a distinctive slant on what’s happening in the world today, based on biblical prophecy.
I support President Bush in our anti-Islamist efforts. I am also an atheist with strong libertarian leanings who did not vote for Bush in 2000. I wonder what broad brush the dear bishop would choose to paint over my stance of the Iraqi theater, as I’m obviously harboring no hopes for Crusade or Judgement Day.
Normally, I would love to fisk this piece and the article on the bishops’ report. Bishop Harries’ thoughts on Just War and wars of intervention are just ripe for the picking. However, in this particular case, I’ll leave it to the Brits themselves. First, here’s a Daily Telegraph editorial.
Western Christians should show “institutional repentance” – should apologise – for the Iraq war, according to a working group of Church of England bishops led by the Rt Rev Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford. Just to make it clear what they mean, the bishops suggest a public meeting where Christian leaders would acknowledge, in front of “mainly Muslim” leaders, the wrongs done by the West.
The bishops predict that such an event will be “dismissed as a cheap gesture”. In reality it would be a very expensive gesture, for a reason that seems to have escaped the bishops in their 101-page document, called without conscious irony Countering Terrorism. First, no one – a zero percentage in statistical terms – in the Muslim world is going to read the 101 pages of nuanced, Englishly civilised, but mostly political rumination. So that would leave Muslims with the impression conveyed by a public act of apology.
The impression given to the Islamic world by such an act, or even its proposal, is that the bishops of England had confirmed that the war against Iraq was a Christian crusade against Muslims. That is not what the bishops mean to say. They opposed the war. They think it was mostly about oil and American power. The inflammatory consequences of reinforcing the erroneous notion of a war against Islam could be far more horrific than anything yet seen, even in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Stephen Pollard comes out with guns blazing in defense of Americans.
Forget all the sophistic arguments about the war acting as a recruiting ground for terror or concern about the terrorists’ victims. The real problem is the very fact of “deeply flawed†Western democracies (as they put it) taking action against tyranny.
Worse still — yes, you knew it was coming, and here it is — it was America that led the way. So consumed are they with hatred for America that they consider Saddam to be preferable to democracy, if it has been facilitated by America. In a passage of breathtakingly blinkered bigotry, we are told that “what distinguishes it (the US) from many other empires in history is its strong sense of moral righteousnessâ€.
No. What distinguishes America is that when it fights it does so not to impose tyranny but to promote freedom and the stable democracy of which the bishops are so contemptuous. Without America sending its sons to fight for liberty, we would be speaking German.
While I like the gist of Pollard’s column, I don’t want anyone to think I support the American government in any attempt to spread or defend democracy from a purely altruistic position. In fact, I don’t want the U.S. government ever doing anything out of altruism — that is not its role. The actions of the U.S. government and military should always be directly or indirectly of benefit to the people of the United States. Let private entities, such as religious bodies, caring groups or heartfelt individuals, act out of selflessness. I do not support our military’s efforts in Iraq for the sheer good of the Iraqi people and the hope for their self-determination. Rather, I view those as aims that may eventually contribute towards the security of my own civilization. Bully for them, bully for us. But I won’t lie, it’s the “bully for us” portion that matters first and foremost to me.
The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
—Winston Churchill
It is truly sad to hear just how few of Sir Winston’s famed Few remain. It is, however, heartening to see them honored as they should be.
They were known as the Few but, to recall Winston Churchill’s phrase, they became heroes to many. Yesterday, 65 years after they fought the Luftwaffe to a standstill, repulsing the threat of a Nazi invasion, 70 veterans of the Battle of Britain gathered on Victoria Embankment in central London to see Prince Charles unveil a memorial in their honour.
For the defence secretary, John Reid, who joined the prince and the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, at a Battle of Britain thanksgiving service in Westminster Abbey, yesterday, it was not a moment too soon. “It is a sad and inevitable fact that today the Few are even fewer,” he told the veterans and next of kin. “But that does not diminish the feeling of pride and international recognition that they won by their heroism.”
Prince Charles, as patron of the Battle of Britain Fighter Association, praised Bill Bond, founder of the Battle of Britain Historical Society, whose idea it was to erect a memorial to the pilots, ground crew and munitions workers who, between July and October 1940, prevented a Nazi invasion. “We shall never forget that if the Few had failed … the consequences for this nation would have been unforgettable.”
More details of the memorial can be found in this article.
The £1.65 million memorial was commissioned by the Battle of Britain Historical Society and funded by public subscription. It is made up of two bronze friezes set in an 82ft-long granite structure, originally designed as a smoke outlet for underground trains when they were powered by steam engines.
One frieze depicts all the achievements of Fighter Command, while the other focuses on the people of London, featuring St Paul’s and an Anderson shelter. Accompanying them is a plaque inscribed with the names of the 2,936 pilots and crew from 14 countries who flew in the battle.
The plinth beneath the relief is engraved with Sir Winston Churchill’s famous phrase: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
Here is the story of the battle, a very important one of many that turned history toward our world of today.
Well, here’s an intriguing kidnapping tale.
The kidnappers of the 37-year-old daughter of a Dutch millionaire who was freed unharmed had demanded a ranson of 300kg of cocaine, authorities said on Thursday.
The kidnappers, who according to the victim appeared to be two Latin Americans and one African, are still at large.
Claudia Melchers was freed by her abductors early on Thursday, Amsterdam’s police commissioner, Willem Woelders, said.
“I do not know why she was freed and she does not know either. I do not know if the ranson or another form of ransom was paid,” said Woelders, admitting there were still a lot of unanswered questions in the investigation.
The police commissioner also said the ransom demand, which was written in English, was in a letter discovered after the kidnapping in Melchers’s apartment, located in an upmarket Amsterdam neighbourhood.
Such a demand certainly would have been an interesting plot twist in Mel Gibson’s Ransom. I can see it now.
The whole world now knows … my son, Sean Mullen, was kidnapped, for ransom, three days ago. This is a recent photograph of him. Sean, if you’re watching, we love you. And this … well, this is what waits for the man that took him. This is your ransom. Three hundred kilograms Columbian in uncut blocks, just like you wanted. But this is as close as you’ll ever get to it. You’ll never snort one line of this cocaine, because no ransom will ever be paid for my son. Not one key, not one gram. Instead, I’m offering this nose candy as a reward on your head. Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter. So congratulations, you’ve just become a three hundred kilograms lottery ticket … except the odds are much, much better. Do you know anyone that wouldn’t turn you in for three hundred kilograms? I don’t think you do. I doubt it. So wherever you go and whatever you do, this blow will be tracking you down for all time. And to ensure that it does, to keep interest alive, I’m running a full-page ad in every major newspaper every Sunday … for as long as it takes. But … and this is your last chance … you return my son, alive, uninjured, I’ll withdraw the bounty. With any luck you can simply disappear. Understand … you will never see this coke. Not one sniff. So you still have a chance to do the right thing. If you don’t, well, then, God be with you, because nobody else on this Earth will be.
War without allies is bad enough, with allies it is hell!
—Marshal of the RAF Sir John C. Slessor
And today we have another reminder of the veracity of Sir John’s statement.
Germany, France, Britain and other European countries said Tuesday that they strongly opposed an American plan for NATO to become involved in counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan.
Meeting with NATO defense ministers here at the start of a two-day conference, the U.S. defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said he would urge the military alliance to expand its role beyond security and peacekeeping and consider joining combat operations against the Taliban-led insurgency.
Although Rumsfeld emphasized that the 20,000 American troops would continue to handle the counterinsurgency mission “for a time,” he said NATO should consider deploying troops to Afghanistan’s eastern border region, where much of the fighting is occurring.
He added, “Over time, it would be nice if NATO developed counterterrorism capabilities, which don’t exist at the present time.”
Well, now would certainly seem an opportune time for NATO to begin building cooperative counterterrorism units and methodologies, and Afghanistan certainly seems the best available testing ground. That is, unless we’re still clutching the fear that the Red Horde is going to come storming through the Fulda Gap.
The Pentagon would like to draw down the presence of American troops, who have come under increasing attack from insurgents since the spring.
Germany’s defense minister, Peter Struck, said on German radio and television that merging NATO’s peacekeeping mission with the American combat operation would fundamentally change NATO’s role in Afghanistan and “would make the situation for our soldiers doubly dangerous and worsen the current climate in Afghanistan.”
Yes, Mr. Struck, putting troops into combat would increase the danger that they face, but thank you, sir, as it’s truly crucial that the obvious be stated costumed as enlightening. Now, if only you would elaborate on how sharing a role in a mission already taking place would change Afghanistan’s climate, then maybe you would actually be saying something of value.
Britain, too, is reluctant to merge the two missions. John Reid, the British defense secretary, supported a “synergy” in which the missions would complement each other. A British defense official said the real issue was “about NATO’s long-term role and how it can adapt to the needs of the 21st century and the new threats.”
France, which has special forces soldiers working alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan, said Tuesday that it opposed merging the two missions.
A French Defense Ministry official, who like the British official insisted on anonymity because of the delicacy of the discussions, said “the two missions were completely different.”
He added: “If you suddenly merge special forces or heavy counterterrorism units with stabilizing forces, which is NATO’s role in Afghanistan, then you completely undermine NATO’s role.”
One issue with both the British and French statement’s here — a merger of the two missions is not actually being proposed with the exception of the very top level of command, as we’ll soon see. The mingling of stabilization and counterterror forces is not being proposed.
NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force in August 2003, the first time that the U.S.-led military alliance took on a mission away from its traditional base of Europe. Its primary role has been to maintain security, expand the authority of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan outside the capital of Kabul and assist in the reconstruction of the country.
Meanwhile, American troops have maintained a separate operation with 20,000 troops aimed mainly at defeating Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, chiefly in the south and east of the country.
With NATO’s mandate scheduled to expire next spring, American officials are urging the alliance to expand its role, in part because of the urge to reduce the U.S. troop presence.
At least initially, Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him, NATO would not replace American troops in a combat role, but handle security and other noncombat duties, as it does elsewhere in the country. Then he added that he hoped NATO would develop counterterrorism capabilities similar to the Americans’.
A senior Defense Department official declined to provide the Americans’ preferred timetable for NATO to take over the Afghan operation. But this week’s meetings in Berlin are aimed at overcoming resistance about taking on a combat role in Afghanistan.
American military officials say they envision a joint NATO command structure in which countries willing to contribute troops to the counterinsurgency mission would be under one commander, while allies that prefer to continue to conduct peacekeeping and other noncombat roles would fall under a separate officer.
This is not allies expressing differences; rather, this is mere quibbling to cover a fear of potentially entering counterterror operations. While one could argue that a unified command structure in the theater simply makes sense in the coordination of efforts, I would be quite willing for the U.S. to give in this area. However, I think the true issue is not this small protestation but rather the reluctance to actually play an offensive role in the Afghanistan arena.
Both operations would fall under a single NATO commander in charge of all operations in Afghanistan, the officials said.
Officials of several NATO countries said they assumed that the United States would want an American in that role.
Judging by the current political leadership of NATO countries, I certainly wouldn’t want a French or German in that role. As I said, I would be willing, albeit reluctantly as I feel it makes sense, give up the unified command concept. Also, I would happily accept a non-American commander take the reins, depending upon the commander and the political backing (read spine) of his countrymen.
German Defense Ministry officials said Struck’s comments had nothing to do with Germany’s federal election that takes place on Sunday. The radical Left Party of former East German Communists and former members of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s Social Democratic Party have called for the withdrawal of all German troops from Afghanistan and other countries. Germany has 1,816 soldiers in Afghanistan.
Struck’s position was clear. “NATO is not equipped for counterterrorism operations” he said. “That is not what it is supposed to do.”
No, counterterrorism was not the original envisionment of NATO. It was formed as a Cold War alliance, a counterweight to the threat from the Soviet Union and its satellites. Should the alliance continue to serve any purpose, however, it must recognize today’s actual threat — the radical Islamist expansionism that is clear to see around the globe. For the foreseeable future, that most assuredly exclusively means counterterrorism efforts, as the jihadists are not in a position to form up as a replacement to the Warsaw Pact forces. If the nations of NATO refuse to face this danger in its current state, I see little need for it to continue as a military alliance. It can be reformed in a number of decades out of the nations that haven’t rotted from within from their already troublesome pockets of Islamist immigrants when there actually is a horde to be faced at the border. Alas! I doubt that enemy will bring the rational behaviour that often seemed to keep the Soviets in check.