The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos

Jihad In America -- Quick Takes On the Appeasement Front

Hamtramck, Michigan could be first U.S. municipality controlled by Muslims

Serving Murder at Your Black Muslim Bakery
ACLU Hypocrisy -- Taxpayers Pay for Muslim School Prayers
British PM Brown Surrenders after al-Qaida attacks fail
Carter sides with Hamas
Carter calls Bush Administration 'Worst in history'
Media Bias - The Scandal of Scandals
Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims
No more Global War On Terror, House committee decrees
The Appeasement of Iran

Back to Top

Hamtramck, Michigan could be first U.S. municipality controlled by Muslims

Hamtramck, Michigan, within miles of 'Dearbornistan' and Detroit, made news in 2004 when the city council passed an ordinance allowing Muslims to broadcast calls for prayer over loudspeakers in the community. Now Hamtramck has four Muslims seeking city council posts. If victorious they would join one incumbent Muslim council member to control five of the six council seats.

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, a project of David Horowitz's Freedom Center, is concerned that emboldened Muslims would impose sharia law on everyone else in the community.

"The fact that there is an increasingly assertive population there [as well as] an increasingly numerous population ... will only make this kind of unilateral assertion of their will more common than it already has been," Spencer asserts.

Examples of Muslim assertiveness in the United States abound -- such as in Minneapolis, where Muslim workers at a Target store refusing to handle pork, airport cab drivers refusing to give service to people who carry alcoholic beverages with them. He also points out that demands have been made for footbaths to be placed in taxi stations and at universities.

"I would expect that a Muslim-controlled city council in Hamtramck could institute all these things [and many others as well] as a matter of city policy," Spencer says.

Back to Top

Serving Murder at Your Black Muslim Bakery

Have you ever felt like the world is closing in on you? Are you under investigation and you're feeling the heat? Relax…salvation is at hand.

In addition to its bean and carrot pies
Your Black Muslim Bakery has a special going on. It's way, way off the menu but just ask Yusuf Bey IV, son of Your Black Muslim Bakery founder Yusuf Bey, and they'll whip it right up. We are talking, of course, of Your Black Muslim Hit Squad.

Longtime Oakland Post journalist Chauncey Bailey was reportedly researching an investigative piece into Your Black Muslim Bakery and got a little to close to the truth. He was found near the courthouse in downtown Oakland shot and killed.

Your Black Muslim Bakery has a long and "checkered past" in the Bay Area to say the least. Finally on August 3, 2007 seven people were arrested on homicide and other charges after police raided Your Black Muslim Bakery and recovered firearms that they believe were linked to the ambush slaying of Bailey.

"The search warrant yielded several weapons and other evidence linking the murder of Bailey to members of the Your Black Muslim Bakery," said Assistant Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan, who according to the Associated Press said the raids were part of a year-long investigation into violent crimes.

Police also found filth and waste - including dead rats on the roof and rat droppings in the bakery - (and we thought all of these peaceful Muslims were clean folk what with all the foot washing basins being installed everywhere) that they believe was leaking into drainage lines, prompting a call to Vector Control, Oakland's code compliance unit, State Fish and Game and the Alameda County's District Attorney's environmental crimes unit.

The late Black Muslim instant imam Yusuf Bey founded the bakery in 1968, building his organization on ideals of black empowerment, respect and self-reliance. His group grew beyond the bakery, eventually including a security company, dry cleaning stores, a school and a health and beauty store, becoming the most visible Black Muslim organization in the Bay Area.

Then a year before his death from cancer in 2003, this "upstanding role model" for young black men was charged with 27 counts in the alleged rapes of four girls under the age of 14. He was awaiting trial on one of those charges when he died.

Then, chip off the old block Antar Bey, 23, was shot to death in 2005 in a failed carjacking attempt at a gas station on Martin Luther King Jr. Way. And Bey's third successor, Yusuf Bey IV, 23 - arrested during the raid - has had numerous previous contacts with law enforcement. In a pending case, he is accused of leading a 2005 vandalism attack on two liquor stores in West Oakland. According to the charges, eyewitnesses identified Bey and others after viewing a security camera videotape that showed a group of men in black suits and bow ties smashing liquor cases and bottles of booze.

The bean and carrot pies don't fall far from the bean stalk. The OG's in the hood can probably learn a thing or two from these guys.

Your Black Muslim Bakery is not currently linked to the Nation of Islam but they seem to have taken a few pages out of the Farrakhan's playbook and his dress code.

Back to Top

ACLU Hypocrisy -- Taxpayers Pay for Muslim School Prayers

In the early 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited state sponsorship of prayers in public schools. But now the issue has a new slant as some schools have taken steps to accommodate Muslim students' strict obligation to pray five times a day towards Mecca.

At Carver Elementary School in San Diego, CA Muslim students from Somalia have been accommodated in order to worship and pray in a classroom specifically set aside for this purpose during the 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. school hour on a daily basis," noted Pacific Justice attorney Peter Lepiscopo in a June 7 letter to the School Board of the San Diego Unified School District. Since "the Board is further developing a Daily Prayer Time Policy," Lepiscopo wrote, "Pacific Justice is requesting not only that Carver Elementary offer the same prayer time for Christians, Jews, and other believers" but also that any policy "should be extended to Grades K through 12 throughout the District."

Coming on the heels of the decision by the University of Michigan to spend $25,000 to install two footbaths at its Dearborn campus to accommodate Muslim students, this represents another obvious violation of the concept of the separation of Church and State. However the ACLU is strangley silent on these two incidents while eagerly going after Christmas displays in public schools.

Muslims initially were willing to raise the money to cover the cost, but the Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union -- often a foe of faith in the public square -- said there was no constitutional reason why the university could not fund the project.

The footbaths in Michigan are similar to one that will be provided for students at the Minneapolis Community and Technical College. Yet at that same college, the administration reportedly banned a campus coffee cart from playing Christmas carols last year and warned faculty and staff to refrain from displays that represent a particular religious holiday during December. The administration did not respond to queries.

"There is clearly a double standard couched in multi-culturalism and diversity, to the detriment of other religions, most especially Christianity," said Brian Rooney, spokesman for the Thomas Moore Law Center, a Christian legal group.

Back to Top

British PM Brown Surrenders after al-Qaida attacks fail

British authorities are reporting that an 8th Muslim foreign national has been arrested and is being questioned with regard to the attacks. It turns out that the ringleader is a well educated doctor named Dr. Mohammed Asha and the plot was hatched in British hospitals. All eight suspects are either doctors or med students. This effectively puts the lie to the liberal terrorist apologists claim that these are poor, unassimilated, dissaffected "youts".

Amazingly, appeasement is on full display in the words of the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. And Britons seem to be approving of the touchy-feely approach.

Smith called terrorists "criminals whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religious backgrounds." Brown has spoken of "al-Qaida" attackers but not of "Islamic" or "Muslim" terrorists. There has also been no talk of a "war on terror" since the failed attacks in London and Glasgow. Not very encouraging.

On Tuesday, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, lauded Brown and Smith for the "calm and reassuring tone of their responses to the recent attacks."

Brown's message-in one brief televised statement and a longer TV interview-can be summarized as "keep calm and carry on." And he urged Britons to "stand together, united, resolute and strong."

Brown has remained behind the scenes, leaving public briefings to police and senior officials.

All we can say is: "Mr. Brown, we knew Tony Blair. Mr. Blair was a friend of ours. You, sir, are no Tony Blair.

Back to Top

Carter sides with Hamas

You can always count on Jimmy Carter to be on the wrong side of an issue, especially where the Jews and Israel are concerned.

The recent takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas has produced some of the most idiotic utterings by Lifetime Appeasement Achievement Neville Award Winner and former President Jimmuh Cahter

Carter labeled the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas "criminal." Most recently he characterized the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in the West Bank, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, as an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples." "I don't see at this point any possibility that public officials in the United States, or in Israel, or the European Union are going to take action to bring about reconciliation."

Not that we particlularly care about the Fatah terrorists. However, let's examine some the statements and acts of Hamas since seizing Gaza. From Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya:
  • Christians living in Gaza have been warned to accept Islamic Law which , includes a ban on alcohol and on women roaming publicly without proper head coverings.
  • Christians in Gaza who engage in "missionary activity" will be "dealt with harshly." The threats come two days after a church and Christian school in Gaza was attacked following the seizure of power in the territory by the Hamas terror group.
  • "Also the activities of Internet cafes, pool halls and bars must be stopped," he said. "If it goes on, we'll attack these things very harshly."
  • Abu Saqer accused the leadership of the Gaza Christian community of "proselytizing and trying to convert Muslims with funding from American evangelicals." "This missionary activity is endangering the entire Christian community in Gaza," he said. Abu Saqer claimed there was "no need" for the thousands of Christians in Gaza to maintain a large number of institutions in the territory.
  • Abu Saqer said Hamas "must work to impose an Islamic rule or it will lose the authority it has and the will of the people." His comments come after gunmen Sunday attacked Gaza's Latin Church and adjacent Rosary Sisters School, reportedly destroying crosses, bibles, pictures of Jesus and furniture and equipment. The attackers also stole a number of computers.
  • Al-Aqsa TV, run by the Palestinian Territories ruling party Hamas, features a squeaky-voiced Mickey Mouse knock-off named Farfur in the weekly children's program "Tomorrow's Pioneers." Little Farfur teaches Palestinian children to fight for Israel's destruction and Islam's domination over the entire world. Little Farfur tells children they must pray in the mosque five times a day until there is "world leadership under Islamic leadership." "We, tomorrow's pioneers, will restore to this nation its glory, and we will liberate Al-Aqsa, with Allah's will, and we will liberate Iraq, with Allah's will, and we will liberate the Muslim countries, invaded by murderers," the mouse character says.
We can understand why Carter is so attracted to these guys...he never met a fascist group or dictator he didn't like.

The Jerusalem Post recently announced "Hamas attempts to gain control of the Temple Mount and recruit new Israeli-Arab operatives in east Jerusalem have been foiled by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), a senior security official announced on Monday. According to the Shin Bet, Hamas, over the past few years, has invested millions of shekels in Jerusalem charities and religious institutions, as well as in construction on the Temple Mount, in an effort to bolster its presence and standing in the capital. Israeli officials said the Hamas takeover of the Temple Mount was a strategic move and was aimed at bolstering the group's standing in the Palestinian territories and throughout the Muslim world. During a year-long operation, Shin Bet arrested 11 Hamas officials based in Jerusalem, 10 of whom hold Israeli identity cards. All 11 detainees were due to be indicted for membership in a terror group and for financing illegal terror activity."

Back to Top

Lifetime Appeasement Achievement Neville Award Winner and former President Jimmuh Cahter has labeled the Bush Administration the the 'worst in history'.

Over the May 19, 2007 weekend he said the following to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."

Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Well, let's get on the Wayback Machine and examine some of Carter's outstanding achievements during his administration:
  • Carter sells out the Shah of Iran leading to the Islamic Revolution
  • Iran seizes U.S. embassy and holds hostages for 444 days -- Carter impotent to act.
  • Soviet Union invades and occupies Afghanistan -- Carter's reaction is to boycott the Olympics. He said "I can't believe Brehznev lied to me".
  • Soviet Union expands influence in Africa and Central America -- Sandinistas take control of Nicaragua
  • Double-digit inflation and a recession.
  • Gas crisis -- prices jump causing inflation
  • Dow Jones Industrial Average stuck in neutral -- never rises above 1000
  • Blames Americans for the country's problems in his famous 'malaise' speech
The bottom line is this -- the mess we are in today can be traced directly back to Carter's weakness on Iran and his unwillingness to confront the Soviets in Afghanistan. If Carter had not sold out the Shah we would not have had an Islamic revolution in Iran. If Carter had been tough with Brehznev the Soviets might not have invaded Afghanistan. The Soviets eventual defeat led directly to the rise of the Taliban and Al Queda. Carter's legacy is 9/11 the War on Terror and the Democrat Party as currently constituted.

Back to Top

Media Bias - The Scandal of Scandals

By Thomas Sowell -

May 8, 2007

Now that ABC News has the list of phone numbers given to them by the "Washington Madam," the question is: Whose names will they publicize if they find out that there are public figures whose phone numbers are among those they have?

Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that these names include Karl Rove and Ted Kennedy. Are both names equally likely to be revealed?

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calls on Vice President Dick Cheney to hold a press conference about the hunting accident Cheney had over the weekend in the Feb. 15, 2006, file photo. Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, has twice presented Republican Dennis Hastert with the speaker's gavel as the GOP extended its control of the House for two more years. "This is getting tiresome, Mr. Speaker," Pelosi joked last time. Now, heading into the November elections in which Democrats have their best chance yet of retaking the House after 12 years in the minority, all sides are taking the measure of the woman who would become the first "Madam Speaker" if her party succeeds (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds/File) And, if only one of these names is revealed, do you have any serious doubt which one the liberal media will reveal?

That is the problem with Washington scandals. In fact, the very definition of a "scandal" by the media differs radically, according to who is involved. That is a bigger scandal than any particular scandal the media report.

Before the Washington Madam surfaced, the big scandal in town was the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. But it was not a scandal, as far as the media were concerned, when Bill Clinton fired every single U.S. Attorney in the country.

Everybody knew then -- but seem to have forgotten now -- that all U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire any of them or all of them, at any time, for any reason or for no reason.

In the case of Bill Clinton, U.S. Attorneys back in Arkansas had been investing corruption in his administration as governor before he became president. Firing all of them covered the fact that he was getting rid of those who were investigating him.

But that was no scandal, as far as the media were concerned.

It was treated as a scandal in the media when Newt Gingrich received a large advance from a publisher while he was Speaker of the House. But it was no scandal when each of the Clintons received larger advances from publishers.

For conservatives, the media standard is not "innocent until proven guilty" but "the appearance of impropriety."

When Senator Harry Reid received a million dollars from a questionable real estate deal involving property that he no longer owned, but whose owner had gotten favorable treatment from the government, that was apparently not even an appearance of impropriety as far as most of the media were concerned.

We have heard a lot of outrage being expressed because, under the Patriot Act, the government can find out what books you have checked out of a public library. That is considered a scandalous invasion of privacy.

But it was not considered a scandal when hundreds of confidential FBI files on Republicans were turned over to the Clinton White House, in violation of the law. Just an honest mistake, according to the Clintons -- and the media bought it.

One of the reasons FBI files on individuals are kept confidential is that anybody anywhere can make any unsubstantiated charge about anybody to the FBI.

People can anonymously accuse you of being anything from a petty thief to a pedophile. Can you imagine how valuable it is to a politician to have hundreds of such files on his enemies?

Just the knowledge that you have such political dynamite in your possession can have a chilling effect on your opponents and corrupt the whole political process.

Who knows whether the impeachment vote in the Senate might have gone the other way if some Senators did not have to worry that Clinton might take them down with him if they forced him out of office?

As for the FBI discovering whether you checked out a cookbook or an X-rated novel from your local library, does anyone seriously believe that they have the time, the manpower or the motivation to look into the reading habits of 300 million Americans, when they have all they can do to try to keep up with the terrorists?

It was a scandal when shock jock Don Imus made a typical shock jock kind of cheap remark about black girls on a college basketball team. But it is no scandal when black "leaders" like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson make racist remarks.

Yet who has more influence -- most of it bad -- on race relations in this country? Outrage at Imus by people in the media who give Sharpton and Jackson a free pass is a little much.

But that is not a scandal, since the media are who determine what is and is not a scandal.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Back to Top

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims


April, 2 2007

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

It added: "In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

A third school found itself 'strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination'.

The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."

But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."

The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'.

Lessons in difficult topics were too often 'bland, simplistic and unproblematic' and bored pupils.

Back to Top

No more Global War On Terror, House committee decrees

By Rick Maze -

Apr 4, 2007

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee's Democratic leadership doesn't like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and "avoid using colloquialisms."

The "global war on terror," a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the "long war," which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration's catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world."

"There was no political intent in doing this," said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. "We were just trying to avoid catch phrases."

Josh Holly, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the committee's former chairman and now its senior Republican, said Republicans "were not consulted" about the change.

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world, while Republicans have said that Iraq is part of the front line in the war on terror. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman, has been among those who have complained that having the military tied up with Iraq operations has reduced its capacity to respond to more pressing problems, like tracking down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

"This is a philosophical and political question," said a Republican aide. "Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home."

However, U.S. intelligence officials have been telling Congress that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian strife and not directly linked to terrorists, although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.

"You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT," said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

"If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named," said another Republican aide. That is a reference to the fact that the villain in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, is often referred to as "he who must not be named" because of fears of his dark wizardry.

Back to Top

The Appeasement of Iran

By Melanie Philips -

London Daily Mail, 28 March 2007

Admiral Lord Nelson must be revolving in his grave. While on patrol in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq, 15 Royal Marines and sailors were seized by Iran on a trumped up charge that they had entered Iranian waters.

Six days on and there is no sign of their release. On the contrary, Iran has stepped up its aggression, threatening to charge the kidnapped marines with espionage and even denying them British consular access.

We have been here before. Three years ago, six Royal Marines and two sailors were abducted from the same waterway and held for three days before being released.

And this time, the crisis is potentially far more serious. There is every prospect that these hostages will be used as bargaining counters to force the release of five Iranian Revolutionary Guards who were captured in Iraq by American troops earlier this year.

Yet in its response to these events, Britain seems to be in some kind of dreamworld. There is no sense of urgency or crisis, no outpouring of anger. There seems to be virtually no grasp of what is at stake.

Some commentators have languidly observed that in another age this would have been regarded as an act of war. What on earth are they talking about? It is an act of war. There can hardly be a more blatant act of aggression than the kidnapping of another country's military personnel.

What clearly does belong to another age is this country's ability to understand the proper way to respond to an act of war. When his Marines were seized by the Iranians, the commander of HMS Cornwall, Commodore Nick Lambert, did nothing to stop them and later said it was probably all a misunderstanding. If Nelson had been such a diplomat in such circumstances, Trafalgar would surely have been lost.

Our Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the Government had been 'disturbed' by the incident. The Prime Minister took three days to say that the seizure was 'unjustified and wrong' and mouthed platitudes about the welfare of the detainees. Yesterday he talked severely of 'moving to a new phase'.

My goodness, the Iranian regime must be shivering in its shoes. With what contempt they must regard us - a country that stands impotently by while its people are kidnapped and then does no more than bleat that it is 'disturbed'.

What on earth has happened to this country of ours, for so many centuries a byword for defending itself against attack, not least against piracy or acts of war on the high seas?

Twenty-five years ago, we re-took the Falklands after the Argentines invaded. Faced with an act of war against our dependency, Mrs Thatcher had no hesitation. Aggression had to be fought and our people defended. It was the right thing to do.

Can anyone imagine Mrs T wringing her hands in this way over Iran's seizure of our Marines?

True, we are now living in very different times. Personally, I supported the Iraq war, and still do. But the undoubted mistakes and disasters made by the coalition since the fall of Saddam have caused this country to throw up its hands over the whole issue of aggression by the Arab and Muslim world.

As a result, many in Britain are failing to see the big picture. Iraq is merely one theatre in a global war which threatens us and in which Iran is a major player.

Indeed, Iran's involvement in Iraq is a major factor behind the bloody terrorism there and the fact that the West has been so reluctant to deal with Iran in Iraq has been one of the major mistakes that has been made.

When the five Iranian Revolutionary Guards were captured in January, along with the defection of two highly-placed Iranian agents, the astounding scale of Iran's involvement in Iraq could no longer be denied.

But the West has failed to deal properly with Iranian aggression for the past three decades, a sign of weakness which has encouraged Iran to ratchet up its attacks.

In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini declared war on the West. We took no notice. In the years that followed, Iran repeatedly attacked western interests. The response was always muted for fear of something worse.

Iran became a major sponsor of world terrorism. It is behind Hezbollah and Hamas and is a principal source of war and instability in the Middle East. Its current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believes that if he brings about an apocalypse he will hasten the return to earth of the Shia messiah, the Twelfth Imam.

Now Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons with which it threatens to wipe Israel off the map and with which it would hold us to ransom. Just imagine the position we would be in if our Marines had been kidnapped by a nuclear Iran.

The kidnapping of the Marines may well be a diversionary tactic. The UN has just decided on a feeble set of sanctions against Iran over the nuclear issue. But now attention has shifted to the fate of the kidnapped Marines.

We just don't seem able to grasp the true nature and scale of the Iranian threat. Indeed, there is a distinct air of irrationality about a Britain which tells opinion pollsters that it believes President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What terrible moral confusion.

We have consistently shown we are not prepared to defend ourselves. In 2004, the British servicemen who were kidnapped by Iran were spirited to Tehran and paraded blindfold on television, which broadcast their apprehensive apologies for a 'big mistake'.

It was an act of war against us. We let them get away with it.

In 2005, the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iran was supplying the roadside bombs that were blowing up our troops in Iraq. Such a supply was an act of war against this country. We let them get away with it.

Our failure to respond adequately to Iranian aggression this time round will provide yet another signal, not just to Iran but to every corrupt despotism which fancies its chances against Western interests, that we are there for the taking.

So what should we be doing? The correct response is to show that if they hit us we will hit back harder. That does not mean rushing to bomb Tehran. But there is a great deal else that we could do to show Iran that we are serious.

First, we should set a clear deadline for the release of our Marines.

Second, we should change our military rules of engagement. The reason Commodore Lambert did nothing to stop the Marines being taken was because the current rules of engagement forbid action which might escalate a crisis.

That must change. We should state publicly that our rules of engagement are now being altered to allow us to defend ourselves.

Third, we should announce that we are seeking a UN resolution condemning the kidnap of our Marines and enabling us to use 'all necessary means' to get them back. And we should back this up with some significant moves by a couple of frigates.

In short, we need to rattle some sabres through a far more muscular and indeed coercive diplomacy.

Iran believes we will not act. They are banking with some confidence on appeasement by the West. And history tells us what horror awaits those who believe you can appease tyranny.

Reading List