"Boris Can Be Churchill If He Acts Now": Ukrainian Activist on the War against Russia | Red Box

Mar 7, 2022 • It's already one of the defining images of the conflict that has reshaped the world. Daria Kaleniuk, the Ukranian human rights campaigner, confronting Boris Johnson over NATO's refusal to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. With the west still refusing to yield to her calls, and president Putin's campaign of aggression escalating, Times Red Box Editor Patrick Maguire spoke to her about Britain's response to the conflict.

Britain and Appeasement

This documentary called 'Did we have to Fight?' explores Britain's options in the run-up to the Second World War. It will be particularly useful for students of appeasement, Neville Chamberlain, and of the wider conflict. The primary sources used are exceptionally good.

Shameless Appeasement of Iran

YNET NEWS: Op-ed: It is morally disgraceful for US president to pressure Jews to turn their back on Israeli concerns

While the Iranians are continuing installing hundreds of new advanced centrifuges every month, the Obama administration has been pressuring US Jewish organizations to stop lobbying in support of US legislation to tighten the economic sanctions against Iran, turn their back on Israeli concerns, and side with President Obama’s wishful thinking of a possible diplomatic solution with Iran.

It is quite disturbing for the president to ask any US organization to turn against a democratic ally for the sake of appeasing and accommodating a dictatorship and longtime enemy. But it is morally disgraceful to pressure Jews to turn their back on the Jewish state when Israel will be on the front line of possible nuclear annihilation by an enemy which has publicly stated its sinister intentions.

It is quite unscrupulous to ask Jews who live with the legacy of the Holocaust to be an accomplice to the culmination of the Iranian nuclear weapon program by agreeing to give more time for negotiations with President Rohani, who has boasted of using previous negotiations with the West as a delaying tactic. But it is quite shameless to ask US Jewish leaders to repeat a dark chapter of their history and be silent again and do nothing to save their own fellow Jews as they did during World War II in order to save face with another US president. » | Shoula Romano Horing | Friday, November 08, 2013

Dhimmitude and Appeasement in extremis: Traitorous Simon Hughes Gives Nauseating Speech, Calls for Muslim Cabinet Members and PM

HT: Michael Arch

Shabby Politics and the Appeasing of a Monster
MAIL ONLINE: With Col Muammar Gaddafi’s troops turning their guns on their own people, reportedly causing hundreds of fatalities, it is clear that the Libyan dictator is nastier and more ruthless than any other Arab despot in the region. That is saying something.

Gaddafi has long been in a class of his own, once rivalled only by the now deceased Saddam Hussein of Iraq, whom it took a war to remove. Among many atrocities for which the Libyan leader has been responsible was the alleged massacre of more than 1,200 prisoners at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli in a single month in 1996.

The man is a monster, and mad and corrupt as well. Yet, starting in 2004, Labour set out to appease him and make deals with him. There was socialising with Gaddafi’s bizarre son, Saif al-Islam. Most serious of all, the last government worked to secure the early release of the ‘Lockerbie bomber’, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who had been convicted of murdering 270 people in 1988.

How on earth did this happen? How was it that a government which preached an ‘ethical foreign policy’ in 1997 – and which went to war against Saddam under the banner of democracy – ended up not just doing business with this tyrant but cutting sordid deals with him, and selling him water cannons and armoured cars which he is using against his own people? Read on and comment >>> Stephen Glover | Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Nile Gardiner: Barack Obama’s Top Five Embarrassing Speeches on the World Stage
THE TELEGRAPH: Last week’s débacle at the United Nations where Barack Obama delivered a speech so naïve that even Jimmy Carter would have blushed, has inspired this list of the five most embarrassing speeches by the president (so far) as a world leader. By embarrassing I mean embarrassing to the United States, speeches that have projected weakness rather than strength, policy statements that have forced millions of Americans to cringe in front of their television sets.

In compiling this list I have picked the five presidential addresses by President Obama that represent the antithesis of the kind of leadership that Ronald Reagan demonstrated in confronting the Soviet Empire and winning the Cold War. These are all speeches that show either staggering naïveté or have gone out of their way to apologize for American power or America’s past, humiliating the United States in the process. Here is my list, in descending order: >>> Nile Gardiner | Thursday, October 01, 2009

UN Summit: Barack Obama Calls for 'New Era of Engagement'
THE TELEGRAPH: President Barack Obama called for "a new era of engagement" with the world on Wednesday, pledging to work together with other countries while defending the interests of the United States, as he addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Obama calls for new era of engagement with the world
Read article here

Nile Gardiner: Barack at the UN: Was This Obama’s Most Naïve Speech Ever?
THE TELEGRAPH: It’s always a bad sign when a US president gets several rounds of heavy applause at the UN General Assembly, as Barack Obama did this morning in New York. Needless to say, the loudest cheers from the gathering of world leaders came when he condemned the actions of a close US ally, Israel, in continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. You can always rely on attacks on the Israelis to generate the biggest roars of approval at any meeting of the United Nations, and Obama dutifully obliged.

The Assembly also mightily cheered Obama’s boast that the United States no longer condones “torture” (as if it ever did), a blatantly political swipe at the interrogation techniques of the previous government, which most Americans happen to back. The president’s decision to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council, a basket case of an organization that includes some of the world’s worst tyrannies, was also greeted warmly.

Needless to say, when the president briefly brought up the need for greater international cooperation over Afghanistan, or spoke about the threat posed by al-Qaeda – or “violent extremists” as he calls them – there was stony silence.

Overall this was a staggeringly naïve speech by President Obama, with Woodstock-style utterances like “I will not waver in my pursuit of peace” or “the interests of peoples and nations are shared.” All that was missing was a conga of hippies dancing through the aisles with a rousing rendition of “Kumbaya”. >>> Nile Gardiner | Wednesday, September 23, 2009

WSJ: Obama’s full speech at the UN:
’New Era of Engagement’ >>> | Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The UN Loves Barack Obama Because He Is Weak
”Yes, we can! Destroy America, that is! – Mark
THE TELEGRAPH: It is not hard to see why a standing ovation awaits Barack Obama when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly today, writes Nile Gardiner.

Barack Obama’s Gallup approval rating of 52 percent may well be lower at this stage of his presidency than any US leader in recent times with the exception of Bill Clinton. But he is still worshipped with messiah-like adoration at the United Nations, and is considerably more popular with many of the 192 members of the UN than he is with the American people.

The latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey of international confidence in Obama’s leadership on foreign affairs shows strikingly high approval levels for the president in many parts of the world – 94 percent in Kenya, 93 percent in Germany, 88 percent in Canada and Nigeria, 77 percent in India, 76 percent in Brazil, 71 percent in Indonesia, and 62 percent in China for example. The Pew survey of 21 countries reveals an average level of 71 percent support for President Obama, compared to just 17 percent for George W. Bush in 2008.

As the figures indicate, Barack Obama is highly likely to receive a warm reception when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly today, whereas his predecessor in the White House was greeted with undisguised contempt and stony silence.

It is not hard to see why a standing ovation awaits the president at Turtle Bay. Obama’s popularity at the UN boils down essentially to his willingness to downplay American global power. He is the first American president who has made an art form out of apologizing for the United States, which he has done on numerous occasions on foreign soil, from Strasbourg to Cairo. The Obama mantra appears to be – ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do to atone for your country. This is a message that goes down very well in a world that is still seething with anti-Americanism.

It is natural that much of the UN will embrace an American president who declines to offer strong American leadership. A president who engages dictators like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez will naturally gain respect from the leaders of the more than 100 members of the United Nations who are currently designated as “partly free” or “not free” by respected watchdog Freedom House.

The UN is not a club of democracies - who still remain a minority within its membership – it is a vast melting pot of free societies, socialist regimes and outright tyrannies. Obama’s clear lack of interest in human rights issues is a big seller at the UN, where at least half its members have poor human rights records. >>> Nile Gardiner* | Wednesday, September 23, 2009

*Nile Gardiner is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.

Dominic Lawson: Seventy Years On, We Are Still Appeasing Dictators
THE INDEPENDENT: In dealing with Libya the Foreign Office has been guilty of institutional cringe

In this, the week of the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, British newspapers have published entire supplements, setting out once again how the policy of appeasing dictators showed a complete failure to understand the gangster psychology of totalitarian regimes.

Yet the unravelling tale of our current government's negotiations with the regime of Col Gaddafi is a more enthrallingly contemporary illustration of the unchanging institutional cringe known as the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office. We have learned – chiefly through the medium of government memos leaked to the Sunday Times – how the Foreign Office saw the release from Scottish custody of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, as a way of earning us good favour in the court of Megrahi's patron and distant relative, Muammar Gaddafi.

In some of these memos you can hear the sound of Foreign Office ministers past and present patting themselves on the back for the results of their negotiations. There is much discussion of the alleged trade benefits, notably a deal between BP and Libya. But two days ago the Libyan Europe Minister, Abdulati al-Obeidi, admitted to that outstanding foreign correspondent Hala Jaber that even if the British Government had set its face against the release of Megrahi, it was "highly unlikely" that the deal with BP would have been cancelled: "Libya also looks out for its interests and to cease the BP deal is not in our interests." Indeed so: last week we learned of BP's astonishing discovery of a 3 billion-barrel oilfield 35,000ft below the Gulf of Mexico seabed, far and away the deepest well ever drilled. If you were the Libyan regime you would very much want the company with such technological leadership helping you to find oil on your territory.

There is a more particular sense in which the Foreign Office has played the hand of the appeaser in its negotiations. The Libyans had made dark noises about the likely reaction of their own population should Megrahi die in Scottish custody – something along the lines of "in such an eventuality we cannot guarantee the safety of British citizens in Libya". This unsubtle threat should have been greeted with the observation that it was the responsibility of the Libyan Government to ensure the safety of innocent British citizens on its territory. Instead we seem to have behaved like the weak tradesman confronted by an unscrupulous protection racketeer.

It is, of course, very embarrassing when craven behaviour comes to light via a leaked memo to the Sunday Times. Hence Gordon Brown's overnight conversion to the idea of asking the Foreign Office to assist with the claims for compensation of the victims of IRA bombs constructed from Semtex provided by Libya – having earlier told the victims' lawyers that the Government could have nothing to do with their campaign.

Yet this attempt to regain the high moral ground is even more contemptible than the decision to leave those victims of Libyan Semtex out of the original deal. When Britain and America did their separate deals over the reopening of normal relations with Gaddafi's regime, the Americans insisted that their own victims of Libyan-backed IRA atrocities be financially compensated; the British made no such demands, essentially declaring that bygones are bygones. >>> Dominic Lawson | Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Obama’s Fantasy Islam: Obama has seemingly chosen to act as an apologist for Islamism
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE: With the media’s rhapsodic paeans to President Obama’s “historic” Cairo speech now receding into the background, this may be an opportune moment to take a sober look at America’s policies vis-à-vis the Muslim world and, no less important, at where Islam itself may be heading.



It is now clear that the president is either unable or unwilling to come to terms with the nature of the radical Islamic threat to America and the West. To him, the problem is a few violent extremists, a “small but potent minority of Muslims,” which leaves one wondering how a small minority got to be quite so potent. In any case, the West is dealing not with a few militants, or even with terrorism as such, but with a murderous, totalitarian doctrine couched in Islamic terms that has already become the dominant idiom in much of the Muslim world and its diaspora communities. Whether it is called “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” “Salafism,” or “Islamofascism,” it aims at nothing short of the conquest of the world for Islam, by violent means if need be. And not just any kind of Islam, but the most reactionary and intolerant interpretation of the Muslim faith.

It is an ideology that elevates violent jihad as a religious obligation for all Muslims, openly discriminates against non-Muslims and women, banishes democracy and secularism, and ordains the murder of apostates and homosexuals. This doctrine is preached today in tens of thousands of Salafi, Wahhabi, and Deobandi mosques and madrassas, and promoted by countless Islamist organizations, from the Muslim Brotherhood networks in America to the Taliban and its fellow jihadists in Pakistan. Extremism and terrorism are the results of this malignant phenomenon. The Taliban and al-Qaeda did not bring Pakistan to the edge of the precipice on their own; rather, 30 years of state-sponsored Islamization of Pakistani society made Islamism the threat it is.

While President Bush was also remiss in explaining to Americans that we’re in a deadly conflict with a violent Islamist doctrine that has deep and spreading roots among a quarter of the human population — rather than with terrorism, which is simply its symptom — Obama has seemingly chosen to act as an apologist for this ideology. There is no other credible reason for a man with an army of experts, researchers, and fact-checkers at his disposal to utter so many half-truths and outright falsehoods about what Islam is and what it is not. These include his touting ostensible Islamic contributions to music (an art form prohibited among the devout) and printing (regarded by the mullahs as the devil’s invention, and not available to Muslims until three centuries after Gutenberg), and his preposterous promotion of Saudi King Abdullah, ruler of the most religiously intolerant country on earth, as a champion of “interfaith dialogue.”

More telling still are Obama’s historically inaccurate portrayals of Muslims as being at “the forefront of innovation and education,” and his blaming colonialism and the Cold War for their falling behind. In fact, Muslims have not been at the forefront of anything since ijtihad (reason) was declared un-Islamic ten centuries ago and replaced by blind obedience to reactionary sharia dogma, which, in turn, ushered in a cultural and intellectual stagnation that is yet to be overcome. Indeed, the greatest Muslim minds over the centuries, from Averoes and Avicenna to Noble Prize physicist Abdus Salam, have invariably been persecuted and declared apostates by the guardians of Islamic orthodoxy. While colonialism is a favorite Islamist whipping boy for all real or imagined ills visited upon the Muslims, it was the result, not the cause, of the inexorable decline of Islam as a world power and civilization that culminated in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. Nor should it be forgotten that throughout most of its history, Islam has been a premier imperialist and colonialist power itself. >>> By Alex Alexiev* | Thursday, June 11, 2009

*Alex Alexiev is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.

The US Is Now a Muslim Country! It’s Official. The Saviour of the US Says So!
Barack Hussein Obama is a danger to the US, and a danger to the free Western world.

I have always been deeply suspicious of his Muslim roots. His latest pronouncement that the US can be considered to be one of the biggest Muslim nations of the world has confirmed my suspicions.

What is this man playing at? To say that the US is a Muslim nation, still less one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, is as stupid as it is dangerous. On what has he based his statement? The USA has a population of about 5 million Muslims; Indonesia has about 207 million. So how can the US be considered a ‘large Muslim nation’? The man is a fool! And an appeasing fool at that!

To me, Barack Hussein Obama comes over as a snake oil salesman. He is far too smooth an operator. I dislike listening to him speak, and I certainly find it hard to trust him. From now on, I shall find it virtually impossible.

I shudder to think about what he is going to say in his major speech in Cairo. I’m sure you do, too.

This man makes Neville Chamberlain come over as Genghis Khan! – ©Mark

YOUTUBE: The Munich Betrayal 1938


YOUTUBE: Appeasement


YOUTUBE: Hamas In Their Own Voices

New Dark Age Alert! Obama, the Great Appeaser

We Must Stop Appeasing Islamist Extremism
THE TELEGRAPH: We can expect Luton-style protests and worse in the years to come unless the Government gets a grip on Islamism, says Ed Husain.

’Flag of Jihad’ courtesy of Google Images
There is something happening inside Britain's Muslim communities. The disgraceful, treacherous protest in Luton last week at the homecoming of the brave Royal Anglian regiment is an indication of resurgent extremism. Does our Government have the political stamina to fight it?

It's comfortable for us to think that these are the actions of a small minority – but are they? The vile mob that hurled abuse against returning troops does not operate in a vacuum, somehow removed from other Muslims. Only two weeks ago, the same group of extremists openly marched in Tower Hamlets, Britain's most densely populated "Muslim area". Where was the local outrage against these bigots? The nearby east London Mosque – Europe's largest Muslim institution – sends groups of young vigilantes to hound local prostitutes and drug dealers, but it turns a blind eye to extremism.

This nationwide network of fanatics, who give themselves various names at different times to deceive the authorities – from al-Muhajiroun to the Saved Sect – is an offshoot of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group that shares al-Qaeda's aim of a global caliphate, but uses different methods.

At Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank, a research team monitors these groups. In recent months, we have seen an increase in their activities and detected a more confrontational mood. It came as no surprise when the CIA warned President Obama last month that the greatest immediate threat to US homeland security was from militant Islamists in Britain with ties to Pakistan. British troops in Afghanistan have reported Britain-based technical support for Taliban operations.

For me, these are symptoms of failed Muslim leadership, a timid civil society and a British Government that, three years after the July 7 bombings, is still unsure how best to proceed. >>> By Ed Husain* | Saturday, March 14, 2009

*Ed Husain is co-director of Quilliam, and author of 'The Islamist'

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>

Suicidal Appeasement
FRONTPAGEMAG.COM: One of the most potent weapons in the jihadist arsenal is the failure of nerve that has afflicted the West for the last forty years. Our own doubts about the core values of Western civilization have hamstrung us in defending these goods against those who want to destroy them. Whether the source of this self-loathing is Marxism, postmodernism, or multicultural noble-savage delusions, our failure to acknowledge the superiority of our own way of life, to teach our children the history of the West and its singular achievements, and to fight against the erosion of those defining beliefs has emboldened the jihadists and confirmed them in their belief that we are decadent and doomed.

In Europe, this pathology has advanced far beyond what we see in the United States, bad as that is. Faced with a sullen, unassimilated, underemployed, welfare-subsidized, and growing population of Muslim immigrants, many Europeans have responded to this challenge with one Munich after another, compromising, if not abandoning outright, core Western beliefs in an attempt to appease an alien culture that has nothing but contempt for the nations that have taken them in. Europe is in the midst of an unprecedented historical experiment: whether a civilization can survive when a critical mass of its own people no longer have faith in the rightness and goodness of their own way of life.

The latest act of suicidal appeasement is unfolding in the Netherlands. To the vicious murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim immigrant, and the craven capitulation to Muslims protesting the innocuous Mohammed cartoons, we can now add the prosecution of Geert Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament, for “inciting hatred and discrimination” against Muslims. His crime? Last year Wilders released online a 17-minute film called Fitna, which juxtaposed images of Islamic terrorism, and sermons advocating terrorism, with the verses from the Koran that sanction violence against unbelievers. Wilders has also been a vocal critic of the Islamization of Dutch society. In other words, Wilders is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam in its own words, and for defending his own culture against its enemies. >>> By Bruce Thornton | Monday, February 2, 2009

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>

European Dhimmi Alert! Sarkozy Shows His Appeasement, His Weakness, His Stupidity!
BRUSSELS JOURNAL: The French government is strongly advocating the teaching of Arabic language and civilization in French schools. Not surprising, considering the number of Arabs and Muslims in France, and the unctuous deference with which they are treated by officials, beginning notably with Nicolas Sarkozy, who cannot praise enough the splendor of Arabic contributions to the world.

The French National Assembly was the scene of a meeting earlier this month of the first Conference on the Teaching of Arabic Language and Culture, attended by a variety of interested parties. There was much wearisome blather about the need for "dialogue."

In his message to the participants, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Arabic the "language of the future, of science and of modernity," and expressed the hope that "more French people share in the language that expresses great civilizational and spiritual values." Sarkozy: Arabic Is the Language of the Future >>> From the desk of Tiberge | October 14, 2008

Hat tip: Tundra Tabloids >>>

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Broché) >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Relié) >>>

Neville Chamberlain's Appeasement: World War II

The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback (US) Barnes & Noble >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Hardcover (US) Barnes & Noble >>>

US Ex-officials Want Good US Relations with Islam
THE JERUSALEM POST: The next US president should speak out for better relations with the Muslim world in his inaugural address and pursue an accord between Israel and the Palestinians within three months of taking office, a diverse coalition of 34 former US officials and civic leaders said in a report being issued Wednesday.

The proposals, which include diplomatic engagement with Iran, are designed to reverse Muslim extremism and enhance US international security. They are based on the conclusion that improving US relations with Muslim countries and communities is critical, the report said.

Also, it said, the new president should reaffirm immediately a US commitment to prohibit all forms of torture.

On promoting democracy among the Arabs, a hallmark of President George W. Bush's foreign policy, the report envisioned a cautious role for the United States: improving governance and civic participation without imposing a particular set of institutions, parties or leaders.

Bush's war on terror, the report said, has been inadequate and sometimes counterproductive. It recommends "partnership" with Muslims committed to nonviolent political and economic development to reverse extremism and promote reform within authoritarian governments. [Source: JP] AP | September 24, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback (US) Barnes & Noble >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Hardcover (US) Barnes & Noble >>>

Voters Punish CDA for Appeasement Politics over Wilders Film
NIS NEWS BULLETIN: THE HAGUE, 04/03/08 - The Christian democrats (CDA) would only win 29 seats if general elections were held now. The disfavour of the voters is the result of the party's attempts to prevent Geert Wilders's film on the Koran from being shown, pollster Maurice de Hond reported.

Last week, CDA still scored 32 seats. The new result of 29 is the party's lowest score since the spring of 2006. CDA currently has 41 seats in the Lower House, which has 150 members.

The three seats lost by the CDA would be divided between Wilders' anti-'Islamisation' Party for Freedom (PVV), the conservatives (VVD) and Proud of the Netherlands (TON). Each of these parties would win one more seat than last week.

PVV (now 9 seats) and VVD (now 22 seats) would each win 16 seats. Proud of the Netherlands, the new party being set up by ex-VVD MP Rita Verdonk, would enter the Lower House with 19 seats, De Hond reports. Voters Punish CDA for Appeasement Politics over Wilders Film >>>

Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)

Ronald Reagan on Appeasement


Mark Alexander

Muslims in Britain Have Got It Made: Islam is of “Strategic Importance to Britain’s National Interests”, says Tony Blair. This Is the Beginning of the End for Great Britain!

Photo of Blair with Imam courtesy of the BBC

BBC: Tony Blair says he wants the "voice of moderation" among Muslims to be heard, as £1m funding was announced to boost Islamic studies at UK universities.

Ministers hope the money, announced as a report criticised teaching quality, will help train more imams in the UK.

At a conference on Islam, Mr Blair also called for closer links between Islamic schools and mainstream state schools. Blair in moderate Muslims appeal (more)

WATCH BBC VIDEO:
Moderate Muslim teaching urged

The Whitewashing of Islam Continues Apace

Mark Alexander