UK Prime Minister on Gaza

[Drummond]

I don't know if this will be of much interest (or any at all) to an American site. But we appear to have a story that's developed in the UK of our Conservative Prime Minister bending to pressure from our Socialists to speak out against the Israeli military actions in Gaza.

Initially, the Conservatives 'counter-attacked', saying of Ed Miliband, the Labour leader responsible for the goading attempt, that Miliband was opportunistically 'playing politics' on the back of the Gaza situation. Now, David Cameron has gone some way to respond critically.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28638491


The United Nations was right to speak out against an Israeli attack near a UN-run school in Gaza, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

Palestinian officials said at least 10 people died in the attack on Sunday.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the attack "a moral outrage and a criminal act".

Mr Cameron would not say if he agreed with those words. He thought it was "an appalling loss of life", adding that civilians must not be targeted.

He told BBC Breakfast there had to to be an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire", adding that the "fastest way to stop this conflict" would be if Hamas rocket attacks on Israel stopped.

'International law clear'

Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called for a political solution to be "imposed" by the international community.

He said: "How many more deaths will it take to stop what must be called the carnage in Gaza? The tradition of friendship between Israel and France is an old one and Israel's right to security is total, but this right does not justify the killing of children and the slaughter of civilians."

Mr Cameron's comments follow a row between Ed Miliband and Downing Street after the Labour leader said the prime minister was "wrong" not to oppose Israel's attacks.

No 10 said it was shocked Mr Miliband would "play politics with such a serious issue".

Health officials in Gaza say 1,800 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed and more than 9,000 injured since the conflict began nearly four weeks ago.

Sixty-six Israelis have died, all but two of them soldiers. A Thai national working in Israel was also killed.

Speaking about the recent attack, Mr Cameron said the UK government had been "very clear that there needs to be an immediate, comprehensive, humanitarian ceasefire and that we want this conflict to stop - and we obviously think that it's an appalling the loss of life".

Asked about Mr Ban's comments that the strike was a "moral outrage", the prime minister said: "I think the UN is right to speak out in the way that it has because international law is very clear that there mustn't be the targeting of civilians or the targeting of schools, if that's what's happened."

Pressed on whether international law had been broken, Mr Cameron added: "I'm not an international lawyer... but international law is very, very clear that use of force always has to be proportionate and civilians should not be targeted."

I'm getting the impression that support of Israel is widespread in America ?

Thanks to outfits such as the BBC, to say nothing of Socialists in the EU (and our Socialists here) that's far from true in the UK. Socialists have worked hard to pull off a propaganda coup to ensure that the vast majority of people concentrate 'on the suffering of the Gazan people' and see Israel's actions as anti-humanitarian aggression. NOW, our Labour leader, riding on the back of the mood which the likes of the BBC has created, has had some success in bending our Conservative Prime Minister's position to conform to it.

Philip Hammond, the newly-appointed Foreign Secretary, was the chief Conservative voice (himself goaded into it, I think) to speak on this before Mr Cameron felt he had to add to the debate. See ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28628577


"Death and destruction": The BBC's Ian Pannell reports from inside Rafah

The situation in Gaza is "simply intolerable and must be addressed", Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says.

His comments follow a row between Ed Miliband and No 10 after the Labour leader said PM David Cameron was "wrong" not to oppose Israel's attacks.

No 10 said it was shocked Mr Miliband would "play politics with such a serious issue".

Thirty Palestinians have been reported killed on Sunday and militants have continued to fire rockets into Israel.

The Foreign Office confirmed that Mr Hammond had spoken to the Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman and Israeli justice minister Tzipi Livni on the telephone on Sunday.

During that call Mr Hammond said he reiterated the UK's "need for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire".

He said: "I welcome indications that Israeli forces may begin to withdraw from Gaza within the next few days."

Mr Hammond also told the Sunday Telegraph the crisis in Gaza could become "an endless loop of violence".

"The British public has a strong sense that the situation of the civilian population in Gaza is simply intolerable and must be addressed - and we agree with them."

In a strongly worded statement on Saturday, Mr Miliband said Mr Cameron had previously been "right to say that Hamas is an appalling terrorist organisation".

"Its wholly unjustified rocket attacks on Israeli citizens, as well as building of tunnels for terrorist purposes, show the organisation's murderous intent and practice towards Israel and its citizens," he said.

"But the prime minister is wrong not to have opposed Israel's incursion into Gaza and his silence on the killing of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians caused by Israel's military action will be inexplicable to people across Britain and internationally."

On Sunday Mr Miliband reiterated that criticism, telling the BBC the government needed to send "a much clearer message to Israel that its actions in Gaza are unacceptable and unjustifiable".

"What I want to hear from David Cameron is that he believes Israel's actions are wrong and unjustified and we haven't heard that from him."

So there it is.

Labour, and Socialist forces generally, are driving popular opinion here, and it's reached the point where Miliband, Labour's leader, has forced our Conservatives to be increasingly in lockstep with it.

And the wider realities, such as the true nature of Hamas and its commitment to Israel's destruction, are drowned out, overlooked entirely, because of lurid media reports, themselves Socialist-driven.

[Gaffer]

This is a prime example of a govt control media putting out the propaganda that's required to keep the people in line with what the govt wants. The American media hasn't completely fallen to that yet. Though I wonder sometimes if the so called right wing media is kept there just to help the create division the DNC wants. Since they can't control all the news here as they can in Britain they allow a certain segment to exist and stir things up.

As for the BBC, Goebbels would be proud.

[NightTrain]

What a bunch of fools.

What would these idiots have said back during the Battle of Britain? Just because the Germans are bombing the hell out of us, it's unreasonable to defend ourselves?

It's the same concept. These British politicians condemning Israel are more ignorant than Chamberlain by a large margin, and they clearly don't understand how disastrous the fruits of appeasement are.

Has anyone made that comparison in your newspapers yet, Drummond? And if not, why not? Fools like this need to be publicly called out so they can be corrected.

[Drummond]

This is a prime example of a govt control media putting out the propaganda that's required to keep the people in line with what the govt wants. The American media hasn't completely fallen to that yet. Though I wonder sometimes if the so called right wing media is kept there just to help the create division the DNC wants. Since they can't control all the news here as they can in Britain they allow a certain segment to exist and stir things up.

As for the BBC, Goebbels would be proud.

I'm not sure I agree with the first part of your post.

Granted, our Conservative Party would seem Left-wing by American standards. Even so, the BBC is well to the Left of them. It's arguable whether they're to the right of Labour .. but if they are, it's not by very much. And Labour is the Government's opposition here.

The BBC has put out pro-Gazan bias throughout in this conflict .. always, they lay it on thick when they talk about Gazan casualties, which they do at least HOURLY, and have for weeks. The Conservatives, by contrast, have been remarkably quiet. It's this silence that Miliband attacked.

Just as I'm typing this, I've got BBC Radio 4 playing. They just offered the opinion that, as Israel says it's attacking as it is in part because Hamas 'has woven itself into civilian life in Gaza to hide from attacks', they say this 'excuse' will 'wear thin if the death count reaches 2,000'. You see ... THIS is how the BBC does it ... saps any sympathy away from the Israeli side, bit-by-bit ... using death tolls to weaken and destroy reason to support Israel.

I've no reason to think that our Conservatives would sanction such comments (the LibDems MIGHT, but their authority in the Coalition is limited). No, the BBC is, I'm sure, acting outside of Governmental control. Maybe in outright defiance of them.

For what it's worth, the BBC would always itself claim it was independent of Government control.

You conclude accurately, though. Goebbels definitely WOULD be proud !!!

[Drummond]

Gaffer, I thought this might be of interest. It illustrates the fact of opposition to the BBC from a senior Conservative -- and also shows that the BBC likes to be a law unto itself. [Indeed, their arrogance is sometimes astounding ..]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24690002


The BBC could face a cut in the TV licence fee or have to share it with other broadcasters unless it rebuilds public trust, a Tory minister has said.

Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps told the Sunday Telegraph the broadcaster must be "more transparent" and change its "culture of secrecy".

The current £145.50 annual fee would be "too much" without reform, he said.

A BBC spokesman said transparency and freedom from political pressure were key to the BBC's future.

Mr Shapps' comments come after negative publicity over pay-outs to top executives and the handling of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Numerous allegations against Savile, who presented programmes including Jim'll Fix It during a long career at the BBC, emerged after his death in 2011 and police have since described him as a "prolific, predatory sex offender".

Mr Shapps also mentioned the case of former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall, who is currently serving a prison sentence for a series of sexual assaults on young girls.

'Question of credibility'

Mr Shapps said the BBC was in danger of "frittering away" public trust.

"They have ended up working in this culture which is buried in the last century, which is 'we are the BBC, we do what we like, we don't have to be too accountable'.

"But they are raising £3.6bn through the licence fee, which is a tax, and, quite rightly, the public wants to have sight of how the money is spent. Things like the pay-offs have really caused concern, as have, obviously, things like Savile and Hall and the culture that goes around that. I think it is one of too much secrecy," he said.

[Drummond]

What a bunch of fools.

What would these idiots have said back during the Battle of Britain? Just because the Germans are bombing the hell out of us, it's unreasonable to defend ourselves?

It's the same concept. These British politicians condemning Israel are more ignorant than Chamberlain by a large margin, and they clearly don't understand how disastrous the fruits of appeasement are.

Has anyone made that comparison in your newspapers yet, Drummond? And if not, why not? Fools like this need to be publicly called out so they can be corrected.

I'll have to check properly to be 100 percent sure, but so far as I know, no British newspaper has suggested any such appeasement parallel. Everyone's too mired in the 'humanitarian tragedy' angle that's been pumped out by the broadcast media hourly, which is setting the pace. But if I find that any paper has taken your point on board, I'll let you know.

Jafar would feel very much at home here these days ..

[Drummond]

What a bunch of fools.

What would these idiots have said back during the Battle of Britain? Just because the Germans are bombing the hell out of us, it's unreasonable to defend ourselves?

It's the same concept. These British politicians condemning Israel are more ignorant than Chamberlain by a large margin, and they clearly don't understand how disastrous the fruits of appeasement are.

Has anyone made that comparison in your newspapers yet, Drummond? And if not, why not? Fools like this need to be publicly called out so they can be corrected.

I've just done a bit of checking ... in some of the newspapers, at least (I can't imagine any Leftie publication would tackle this themselves). Checked the Express, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Times (to the extent I could without offering them their subscription fee), and the Independent (which itself frequently lurches to the Left).

I found this in the Independent .. a 'let's demonise Israel by castigating a reporter of theirs' piece ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-when-genocide-is-permissible-article-removed-from-the-times-of-israel-website-9643888.html


An Israeli newspaper appeared to attempt to avert a backlash on Friday evening, when it removed a post entitled 'When Genocide is Permissible' from its website less than a minute after it was uploaded.

The post, made live on The Times of Israel website at 5:36pm, was written by Yochanan Gordon regarding Israel’s current offensive in Gaza.

More than 1,400 Palestinians have died in the almost month-long war, and nearly 7,000 wounded. Israel says that alongside the deaths of 63 of its soldiers, two civilians and a Thai national have died and more than 400 have been injured.

“We are at war with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of our people. Nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live,” the piece argues.

"[the US and the UN are] completely out of touch with the nature of the foe [Hamas]” and “therefore not qualified to dictate or enforce the rules of this war," he continues, writing hours after a ceasefire between the two sides announced by the UN and US on Thursday disitegrated.

“Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?”

“Anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian,” he writes.

“If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?” he concludes.

A spokeswoman from The Times of Israel has since condemned the blog as "damnable and ignorant".

She told The Independent: "The blog post, which was both damnable and ignorant, was uploaded by a blogger. It was removed by the Times of Israel for breaching our editorial guidelines. The blog has been discontinued."

In his biography, Yochan claims to be the son of the founder of American newspaper the 5 Towns Jewish Times, which circulates in New York.

The article remained live on the 5 Towns Jewish Times website on Friday evening. On its ‘About Us’ page, the newspaper explains that its editorial policy is to “maintain a middle-of-the-road point-of-view to shed light on all reasonable perspectives in a fair and balanced way.”

“The 5 Towns Jewish Times is committed to address all matters of note from a position of intelligence, integrity, and accuracy; and to report difficult social, political, and religious issues from all viewpoints without bias, whitewashing, or journalistic oversimplification,” it adds.

On Friday evening, “When Genocide is Permissable” was trending on Twitter, with users tweeting their outrage at the offensive post.

“I wonder which journalistic (or human) ethics guided the decision to publish an article entitled “When Genocide is Permissible”. Appalling,” tweeted BBC Journalist Hugo Bachega.

You see what the Independent is trying to do here, I take it ...

As for one of our LibDem people, this, from the Daily Express ...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/490993/Lib-Dem-MP-defiantly-stands-by-vile-Gaza-tweets


A LIBERAL Democrat MP has stood by the 'vile' comments he made about the Gaza conflict despite his party "utterly condemning" his remarks.

Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning, David Ward, MP for Bradford East, claimed "people jump straight on the anti-Semitism bandwagon".

Mr Ward will face disciplinary action for backing rocket attacks from Palestinian group Hamas in Twitter posts - almost exactly a year after he was suspended for questioning the continued existence of the state of Israel.

Lib Dem chiefs said the party "utterly condemns" the remarks made by Mr Ward after he posted on his Twitter page: "The big question is - if I lived in Gaza would I fire a rocket? - probably yes," before adding, "ich bin ein #palestine- the West must make up its mind- which side is it on?"

When asked whether he stood by his comments or would apologise for it, Mr Ward remained defiant and insisted he "condemned violence on both sides".

"The question is why would someone want to "The question is why would someone want to fire missiles when they know that the missiles are going to result in further Palestinian deaths to a disproportionate level?to a disproportionate level? Why are they are doing?," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"They are doing it really, because they are absolutely desperate and because politicians in the West are failing them."

Defending his remarks, he continued: "What is quite interesting is that yesterday in a Westminster Hall debate in the House of Commons I condemned violence on both sides.

"I condemned obviously what Israel continue to do day in and day out. I also condemned the firing of missiles rockets from Gaza. I did that in a Westminster Hall debate - not a single word was said."

Probed over his "ill-judged" comments Mr Ward added: "Why are people doing this? Why are they firing rockets?

"When the rockets are fired, they are done by people who know what's going to happen. The repercussions of that - of this horrendous military force - that Israel has will result in further Palestinian deaths.

"Why are they doing that? And the answer is that they are so desperate to retaliate for what is happening to them."

Mr Ward's controversial outbursts were immediately criticised by fellow MPs, including Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps, who called on "a desperate" Mr Ward to withdraw the " appalling" and "vile" comments.

"Appalling: No MP should Tweet what's essentially incitement to violence," Mr Shapps tweeted.

"Mr Ward must withdraw now. Completely irresponsible."

Another Lib Dem MP, Stephen Williams, distanced himself from his party colleague's views.

He said: "I think Israel's response is heavy handed but Hamas rocket firing is deplorable too.

"I've seen school bomb shelters in S Israel."

A Lib Dem spokesman said the comments "are not representative of the Liberal Democrats".

"Nick Clegg has been at the forefront of calling for peace in Israel and Gaza," he added.

"The party takes this matter very seriously and will treat it as a disciplinary issue."

From the Daily Mail ... evidence of how far David Cameron has moved to appease the Left ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715428/International-condemnation-Israel-grows-Appalled-US-David-Cameron-condemn-Gaza-school-air-strikes-France-decries-slaughter-civilians.html


International outrage over Israel's bombardment of Gaza continued to grow today as the world reeled from news that a third deadly attack on a UN school sheltering fleeing Palestinians killed ten yesterday, including children.

The U.S. State Department was first to condemn the bombing, on the compound in the southern town of Rafah that was sheltering 3,000 Palestinian refugees, as 'appalling' and 'disgraceful' as it pleaded with Israel to take more care to avoid civilian casualties.

Hours later, David Cameron joined the chorus of disapproval with his own message to Tel Aviv in which he backed UN chief Ban Ki-moon's condemnation of the attack as 'a moral outrage', but stopped short of agreeing that it was a 'criminal act'.

But the starkest condemnation of Israeli actions came from allies, France, whose foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, branded the 'killing of children and slaughter of civilians' as unjustifiable.

'How many more deaths will it take to stop what must be called the carnage in Gaza?' Fabius said in a statement. 'The tradition of friendship between Israel and France is an old one and Israel's right to security is total, but this right does not justify the killing of children and the slaughter of civilians.'

France is closely allied with Israel, and Fabius' statement was a rare direct criticism. The Gaza war, now in its fourth week, has killed more than 1,800 Palestinians and more than 60 Israelis.

He added: 'This is why we need a political solution, of which the components are known, and which I believe should be imposed by the international community, because the two parties - despite countless efforts - have unfortunately shown themselves incapable of completing talks.'

It came as a spokeswoman for David Cameron said Britain is reviewing all arms export licences to Israel in response to the Jewish state's escalating conflict with Hamas in Gaza.

You see ? The emphasis is all about the level of condemnation considered appropriate to foist ISRAEL'S way. Nobody is looking beyond pictures of 'suffering Gazans' to see a wider need to have Hamas smashed.

In one sense, this is all the more remarkable. You see, here, in this part of the world, we're marking the centenary of World War I (1914-1918, as it's judged here .. it's a big story in itself). So ... you'd think that the concept of military defence of a nation would be uppermost in peoples' consciousness.

Not a bit of it, though, so far as Israel's concerned. People look at death tolls. They see more have died on the 'Palestinian' side, so, this must mean that Israel is attacking 'disproportionately'.

Yes. Jafar would be thrilled, and pleased for his chums in Hamas. No doubt about it.

[aboutime]

I'll have to check properly to be 100 percent sure, but so far as I know, no British newspaper has suggested any such appeasement parallel. Everyone's too mired in the 'humanitarian tragedy' angle that's been pumped out by the broadcast media hourly, which is setting the pace. But if I find that any paper has taken your point on board, I'll let you know.

Jafar would feel very much at home here these days ..


Sir Drummond. It now appears the UK Prime Minister has become the Eastern Atlantic Version of the Obama Administration.

Next thing all of you will know. You'll have another, wannabe Neville Chamberlain.

Sounds like a DUCK, Quacks like a Duck, and Acts like a Duck...so, why not try to repeat History again???

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. It now appears the UK Prime Minister has become the Eastern Atlantic Version of the Obama Administration.

Next thing all of you will know. You'll have another, wannabe Neville Chamberlain.

Sounds like a DUCK, Quacks like a Duck, and Acts like a Duck...so, why not try to repeat History again???

Cameron is remarkably spineless at times.

He does have Conservative instincts. But he's proved himself to be considerably to the Left of Margaret Thatcher. He's been an outspoken supporter of gay marriage. He's on record as saying he 'loves' our NHS. He also buys into the notion that Muslim terrorists are just a few extremists, unrepresentative of Islam (cue Jafar for some sanitising applause ?).

Probably top of his agenda is the next election, which he'll hope to win outright for the Conservatives. Again unlike Margaret, who was the ultimate conviction politician, I think he'll court public opinion and approval. To be fair, right now, he DOES have the LibDems on his back, as junior members of a Coalition Government. Though why this has to mean that he ever bends to Miliband's Leftie whims, I can't imagine.

[aboutime]

Cameron is remarkably spineless at times.

He does have Conservative instincts. But he's proved himself to be considerably to the Left of Margaret Thatcher. He's been an outspoken supporter of gay marriage. He's on record as saying he 'loves' our NHS. He also buys into the notion that Muslim terrorists are just a few extremists, unrepresentative of Islam (cue Jafar for some sanitising applause ?).

Probably top of his agenda is the next election, which he'll hope to win outright for the Conservatives. Again unlike Margaret, who was the ultimate conviction politician, I think he'll court public opinion and approval. To be fair, right now, he DOES have the LibDems on his back, as junior members of a Coalition Government. Though why this has to mean that he ever bends to Miliband's Leftie whims, I can't imagine.


Sir Drummond. I fully understand your need to grant Cameron the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT in many respects. But I see him, much as I see many of our present "RINO" (republican in name only) politicians who hold up their WET finger to see which way the PARTISAN WIND IS BLOWING.

What you in the U.K. and we, here in the USA need...are a new brand of Politician that has "A STEEL PAIR" who isn't afraid to speak the TRUTH...not just to get votes, but to HONESTLY DEFEND THE PEOPLE.

Call me old fashioned, but...as you must know by now.

"I TRUST NO POLITICIAN FROM EITHER POLITICAL PARTY"

I know, at first. They mean well...which tends to win their elections. But, after election day. No matter which side of the Atlantic, or Pacific they may be on. "THEIR SINGLE GOAL becomes the lengthening of their Political Career"...and the people BE DAMNED.

All of which brings us to....."FOLLOW THE MONEY".

[NightTrain]

Nice bit of work there, Drummond.

Sounds like you have a few good guys with common sense calling out idiots like Ward... that's good to know. Funny that even your Lib Dems are trying to distance themselves from their lunatics like Ward.

It just seems to me with Britain's history that an easy parallel can be made in the debate and it should end the discussion. You guys were getting the holy hell bombed out of you by V2s and aircraft and you didn't roll over and try to appease - you fought the good fight like any sensible nation would.

I really don't see the difference in circumstances, and everyone already knows what happened with Chamberlain's appeasement.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. I fully understand your need to grant Cameron the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT in many respects. But I see him, much as I see many of our present "RINO" (republican in name only) politicians who hold up their WET finger to see which way the PARTISAN WIND IS BLOWING.

What you in the U.K. and we, here in the USA need...are a new brand of Politician that has "A STEEL PAIR" who isn't afraid to speak the TRUTH...not just to get votes, but to HONESTLY DEFEND THE PEOPLE.

Call me old fashioned, but...as you must know by now.

"I TRUST NO POLITICIAN FROM EITHER POLITICAL PARTY"

I know, at first. They mean well...which tends to win their elections. But, after election day. No matter which side of the Atlantic, or Pacific they may be on. "THEIR SINGLE GOAL becomes the lengthening of their Political Career"...and the people BE DAMNED.

All of which brings us to....."FOLLOW THE MONEY".

Very fairly put.

I'd like to think that Cameron will follow stronger Conservative instincts if/when he gets the LibDems out of Coalition Government. Perhaps, or perhaps not. I doubt it myself.

And I agree. You need another Reagan. We need another Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher would've only sought votes on the basis of .. 'This is what I stand for. This is what I believe is best for Britain. Vote for me, and you know what you'll get. I will bend my beliefs and my intentions for nobody'.

Sid Weighell, head of one of our major Unions at the time as I recall, went on air on the very first morning of her first election victory, declaring she'd have to work in tandem with him and his counterparts in other Unions if she was to have a successful time as Leader. Margaret just ignored him ... and in the years ahead, introduced power-curbing legislation against the Union movement.

She risked losing millions of votes by 'crossing' Unions. She was undaunted, and just carried on .. in the belief that it was the right thing for the country.

Can't you loan us Ann Coulter for a few months ? We need her to shake things up a bit ....

[Drummond]

Nice bit of work there, Drummond.

Sounds like you have a few good guys with common sense calling out idiots like Ward... that's good to know. Funny that even your Lib Dems are trying to distance themselves from their lunatics like Ward.

It just seems to me with Britain's history that an easy parallel can be made in the debate and it should end the discussion. You guys were getting the holy hell bombed out of you by V2s and aircraft and you didn't roll over and try to appease - you fought the good fight like any sensible nation would.

I really don't see the difference in circumstances, and everyone already knows what happened with Chamberlain's appeasement.

I agree with you .. and thanks. Those V2's were pesky little blighters ... but they stiffened resolve. You don't appease any malevolent enemy firing such things at you.

But that was generations ago, and we've had generations of Lefties busily rotting our brains in the interim. Today's sensibilities are firmly locked on the 'those poor, suffering Gazans' angle, to the detriment of any other relevant issues or perspectives.

Don't kid yourself, though. Our Lib Dems are in a weak position electorally, with a leader in Nick Clegg that everyone DID like and trust, but considerably less so now. We have an election not too far off ... and the LibDems will have their eye on that, wishing to play it as safe as they can in the run-up to it.

Consider also that the UK's Lib Dems are only 'good' for anything when in coalition. Now, they work with the Conservatives. If need be, they'll work with Labour and share power with THEM, if the voting at the next election stacks up in such a way as to require it. So they have to be an enough of a viable partner to EITHER Party, when the time comes.

[aboutime]

Very fairly put.

I'd like to think that Cameron will follow stronger Conservative instincts if/when he gets the LibDems out of Coalition Government. Perhaps, or perhaps not. I doubt it myself.

And I agree. You need another Reagan. We need another Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher would've only sought votes on the basis of .. 'This is what I stand for. This is what I believe is best for Britain. Vote for me, and you know what you'll get. I will bend my beliefs and my intentions for nobody'.

Sid Weighell, head of one of our major Unions at the time as I recall, went on air on the very first morning of her first election victory, declaring she'd have to work in tandem with him and his counterparts in other Unions if she was to have a successful time as Leader. Margaret just ignored him ... and in the years ahead, introduced power-curbing legislation against the Union movement.

She risked losing millions of votes by 'crossing' Unions. She was undaunted, and just carried on .. in the belief that it was the right thing for the country.

Can't you loan us Ann Coulter for a few months ? We need her to shake things up a bit ....

Sorry my friend. Ann does her own thing...THANK GOODNESS!:laugh:

We have far too many people here who hate her so much, they would welcome her leaving for the U.K.
I know you are aware of Micheal Savage....who has been banned from setting foot in the UK.
Come to think of it. It's a wonder Ann hasn't been banned over there too!
We have this MUTUAL POLITICAL PROBLEM, here, and there. Where people like Ann are scorned, threatened, and attempts to destroy them take place almost daily WHEN THE TRUTH IS MENTIONED, and so many refuse to accept TRUTH...because they are UN-informed, UN-educated, and so EASILY LED to believe lies...OUR LEFT call facts.
Old story. But we have to wait and hope...OUR NATIONS survive until the elections take place.
After that. Who knows??

[Drummond]

Sorry my friend. Ann does her own thing...THANK GOODNESS!:laugh:

We have far too many people here who hate her so much, they would welcome her leaving for the U.K.
I know you are aware of Micheal Savage....who has been banned from setting foot in the UK.
Come to think of it. It's a wonder Ann hasn't been banned over there too!
We have this MUTUAL POLITICAL PROBLEM, here, and there. Where people like Ann are scorned, threatened, and attempts to destroy them take place almost daily WHEN THE TRUTH IS MENTIONED, and so many refuse to accept TRUTH...because they are UN-informed, UN-educated, and so EASILY LED to believe lies...OUR LEFT call facts.
Old story. But we have to wait and hope...OUR NATIONS survive until the elections take place.
After that. Who knows??

I certainly echo that !!!!

Presumably Ann hasn't been banned, precisely because our people know she has no interest in ever setting foot in Blighty (.. though isn't that also true of Savage ?)

There is one 'celebrity', though, who definitely hasn't been banned. I refer of course to MICHAEL MOORE. He comes and goes as he sees fit, with our authorities not batting an eyelid in reaction.

[aboutime]

I certainly echo that !!!!

Presumably Ann hasn't been banned, precisely because our people know she has no interest in ever setting foot in Blighty (.. though isn't that also true of Savage ?)

There is one 'celebrity', though, who definitely hasn't been banned. I refer of course to MICHAEL MOORE. He comes and goes as he sees fit, with our authorities not batting an eyelid in reaction.


Sir Drummond. MOORE is always welcomed everywhere he goes because he will EAT, and create as much needed revenue as he can to appease his fellow HATE MONGERS, and IDIOTS.

[SassyLady]

What a bunch of fools.

What would these idiots have said back during the Battle of Britain? Just because the Germans are bombing the hell out of us, it's unreasonable to defend ourselves?

It's the same concept. These British politicians condemning Israel are more ignorant than Chamberlain by a large margin, and they clearly don't understand how disastrous the fruits of appeasement are.

Has anyone made that comparison in your newspapers yet, Drummond? And if not, why not? Fools like this need to be publicly called out so they can be corrected.

NT ... all the politicians remind me of what occasionally happens on the school yard. A bully will taunt another kid endlessly and then one day the victim decides he's had enough. For all that time he refrained from retaliating because he doesn't want to resort to violence. He's tried reasoning with the bully, he's even given the bully some of his personal belongings as a "go along to get along" tactic. But now, he's just had enough. So, he beats the crap out of the bully. All the kids that usually stand around and egg on the bully are now aghast at the violence raining down on the bully's head. They want the teachers to stop the beating and punish the original victim. People in the world today don't understand the concept of standing up for yourself ... in part because every time it happens the victim is punished.

I told my kids to never start a fight, but they had better stand up for themselves and not let anyone bully them. I also said that if it came down to a fight they had better fight to win it. No rules, no holds barred ... do what it takes to win it and end it.

[DLT]

Cameron is remarkably spineless at times.

He does have Conservative instincts. But he's proved himself to be considerably to the Left of Margaret Thatcher. He's been an outspoken supporter of gay marriage. He's on record as saying he 'loves' our NHS. He also buys into the notion that Muslim terrorists are just a few extremists, unrepresentative of Islam (cue Jafar for some sanitising applause ?).

Probably top of his agenda is the next election, which he'll hope to win outright for the Conservatives. Again unlike Margaret, who was the ultimate conviction politician, I think he'll court public opinion and approval. To be fair, right now, he DOES have the LibDems on his back, as junior members of a Coalition Government. Though why this has to mean that he ever bends to Miliband's Leftie whims, I can't imagine.

But if that were true (big if)....there would be Muslims everywhere speaking up and speaking out against the actions of those "few extremists". Instead, they are all quite silent....and in my political playbook, silence equals consent, if not approval.

Cameron wasn't born yesterday and he knows damned well that it's not just a "few extremists" that the world is dealing with. It is quite literally the rise of extremist and radical Islam. And they're not gonna stop until they conquer it all. Somebody will have to stop them.

[DLT]

NT ... all the politicians remind me of what occasionally happens on the school yard. A bully will taunt another kid endlessly and then one day the victim decides he's had enough. For all that time he refrained from retaliating because he doesn't want to resort to violence. He's tried reasoning with the bully, he's even given the bully some of his personal belongings as a "go along to get along" tactic. But now, he's just had enough. So, he beats the crap out of the bully. All the kids that usually stand around and egg on the bully are now aghast at the violence raining down on the bully's head. They want the teachers to stop the beating and punish the original victim. People in the world today don't understand the concept of standing up for yourself ... in part because every time it happens the victim is punished.

I told my kids to never start a fight, but they had better stand up for themselves and not let anyone bully them. I also said that if it came down to a fight they had better fight to win it. No rules, no holds barred ... do what it takes to win it and end it.

Exactly.

[Caliban]

Don't expect Europeans to do the right and moral thing by supporting Israel's efforts to combat terrorism: those idiots have allowed their countries to fill up with unassimilable muslims, and European governments will do everything in their power to keep them happy and not cause trouble, even if they have to trample underfoot their most cherished democratic traditions to do so.

Muslims in Europe are a large and growi g power bloc. Jews are not. Guess who wins THAT one?!

[SassyLady]

Even if a government is trying to build up a tax base by allowing in unlimited immigrants (or illegals), the ensuing problems, in my opinion, are just not worth it.

[Drummond]

But if that were true (big if)....there would be Muslims everywhere speaking up and speaking out against the actions of those "few extremists". Instead, they are all quite silent....and in my political playbook, silence equals consent, if not approval.

Absolutely !!! I couldn't agree more. In fact .. a few years ago, we in the UK had an excellent illustration of that. One Abu Hamza spent a couple of YEARS preaching a 'radical' (for 'radical', read HONEST) Islamic message to any audience he could get. Weekly, he'd preach outside the Finsbury Park mosque, in north London, and attract crowds who'd listen. How many of those (Finsbury Park is a 'multicultural' area, with its contingent of Muslims) he 'radicalised' is anyone's guess.

Over all that time, after literally hundreds of such preaching sessions, how many Muslims spoke up, to complain, protest, report him to our authorities ? NOT ONE that I'm aware of.

Hamza was ultimately arrested, held, and sent to America from an extradition request. The last I heard, he faced terrorism charges there. I'm not sure of the outcome of that.

For what it's worth ... we have a contributor here by the name of 'Jafar', who's a Muslim (and Islam sanitiser, and now, a proven Hamas supporter). He happened to live in north London during the time Hamza was preaching. I directly asked him if he knew of any instances of Muslim complaints or reports made against Hamza ... HE COULDN'T TELL ME OF A SINGLE ONE. The best he could claim was that he'd been 'advised to avoid Finsbury Park when Hamza was preaching'.


Cameron wasn't born yesterday and he knows damned well that it's not just a "few extremists" that the world is dealing with. It is quite literally the rise of extremist and radical Islam. And they're not gonna stop until they conquer it all. Somebody will have to stop them.

Well stated !

Trouble is, I don't believe anyone in authority here will try to. Oh, they'll take stances, and maybe make arrests, against particular individuals who go beyond a certain point (the murderers of Drummer Lee Rigby on a London street is one obvious example). But .. every political Party buys into, and will insist, that any terrorists are 'extremists' and 'radicals' who fall outside 'mainstream Islam', which they insist 'is a religion of PEACE'.

Just weeks after 9/11, Tony Blair took that line. As staunchly behind the War on Terror as he genuinely was, he always ALSO said that Islam was 'a religion of peace', and terrorists were an aberration. Boris Johnson, current London Mayor and a CONSERVATIVE, argues exactly the same thing (in his case, the Muslim vote is pivotal to the successful election of any candidate for London Mayor).

My belief is that nobody in authority in the UK will ever risk inciting Muslims to action by ever exposing the truth of Islam .. because we already have too many Muslims here (whole communities of them), and they want to avert any possibility of civil unrest or outright terrorist attacks. Besides .. to do so, publicly, could constitute 'hatespeech', and is actionable in law ...

[Drummond]

Don't expect Europeans to do the right and moral thing by supporting Israel's efforts to combat terrorism: those idiots have allowed their countries to fill up with unassimilable muslims, and European governments will do everything in their power to keep them happy and not cause trouble, even if they have to trample underfoot their most cherished democratic traditions to do so.

Muslims in Europe are a large and growi g power bloc. Jews are not. Guess who wins THAT one?!:clap::clap:

Exactly right !!

We've a developing situation here in the UK. Our Labour Party (Socialist) has as its leader one Ed Miliband. A couple of days ago, Miliband publicly attacked David Cameron's 'silence' when it came to strong condemnation of Israel's military actions against Gaza, and the deaths and injuries resulting from it. He wanted to goad his opposition into being as strongly anti-Israeli as his own Party was.

Public opinion has shown a certain degree of support of that.

Since then, just 24 hours before the time I'm typing this, one 'Baroness Warsi', an important Conservative figure here, AND A MUSLIM, quit the Party. She did so in protest against the Conservatives' 'morally indefensible' stance in failing to be outright condemnatory against Israel. This has generated much debate, with (for example) George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer) saying her resignation was 'unnecessary' and misguided.

This sums up the current mood, I think ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/baroness-warsi-resignation-twitter-backlash-as-tory-mp-michael-fabricantaccused-of-suggesting-gaza-is-a-muslim-issue-9649684.html


Lady Warsi, a senior Foreign Office minister as well as being minister for faith and communities, resigned today because of the Government’s “morally indefensible” approach to the Israeli-Palestinian fighting.

The former Tory chair became the UK’s first female Muslim cabinet minister when Mr Cameron took office in 2010 – but as recently as this Saturday hit out at those who label her based on religion when she discusses foreign affairs.

She tweeted: “If I have a view on the economy I’m a Tory, on the NHS I’m a Tory but on foreign policy it’s because I’m Muslim!”

Giving his response to Lady Warsi’s resignation on Twitter this morning, Mr Fabricant wrote: “Sad @SayeedaWarsi has gone. I was her whip when Party Chairman & know she has v strong views on Muslim issues. But DC [David Cameron] is right on Gaza.”

The Tory MP’s reaction provoked an almost immediate backlash online, with many criticising the apparent suggestion that Gaza is among the “Muslim issues” on which Lady Warsi “has v strong views”.

Martin Lennon responded: “Wow. @Mike_Fabricant just described #Gaza as a ‘Muslim issue’. So we should only care about dead children if they're Christian? Sickening.”

Shelina Janmohamed wrote: “This is not a ‘Muslim issue’. This is a matter of human conscience for everyone.”

As the row escalated, Ms Janmohamed said it showed Mr Fabricant was “out of touch with human conscience, popular opinion and the facts”.

The MP later responded to the criticism on Twitter, saying: “Gaza is certainly NOT a ‘Muslim issue’. It is indeed a humanitarian issue.”

So, to sum up, Warsi - a Muslim - is 'a Muslim on foreign policy issues'. Nonetheless, her stance against the Government on Gaza is a 'humanitarian' one.

...... Convenient, that ......

Bottom line: our Left want to wallop Israel over this. Warsi .. ditto (and she wants the Conservatives goaded into following suit). Most people here seem to be in lockstep with all that.

That Israel has a right to do what it takes to protect themselves from terrorist attacks, seems not to matter to any of them.