“Britain’s warships cannot attack Houthi targets on land because they lack the firepower, in a situation described by former defence chiefs as a “scandal”.
None of the Royal Navy’s destroyers or frigates have the ability to fire missiles at targets on land, leaving the US to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF planes based 1,500 miles away.
John Wilson and Judgement Day
Posted on September 27, 2018 by Royal Rosamond Press
Reverend John Wilson attacks the Catholic Church and Papacy in his long poem A Song of Deliverance. He is admonishes THE SLAUGHTER OF JEWS during the siege of Jerusalem, that was conducted by Godfrey de Bullion, the Grandmaster of the Knights Templar.. Wilson and other Puritans spoke of their own Zion, and favored the Jews in the battle of religious hegemony they were having. Even though I do not aspire to be anything like the Pope’s Jesus, Christian leaders teach their ignorant flocks, that anyone who looks, talks, and has religious revelations – is trying to usurp Jesus – and thus is proof Jesus was real. In my opinion. I have done more to prove Jesus – WAS FOR REAL – than the Protestant and Catholic church, combined.
Four years ago I began my James Bond book ‘The Royal Janitor’ that has proven prophetic. Below is an article on the the “scandal” in the inability of the Royal Navy to engage the enemy. If the Church of England is waiting for Jesus to come FIX the Navy, then they are standing in line behind the Evangelical Leaders that control our Congress, who have launched a Holy Crusade against illegal aliens, and are going to Forsake the Ukraine. How about forsaking Israel?
As a real theologian and prophet, I can guarantee you, THEIR JESUS is not coming to Save Mankind! Not today, or tomorrow. Below are images of my great grandparents in Saint George Cathedral at Windsor, where Rev. John Wilson was born. Bill Ackman has no idea the roots of Harvard are found here. He is – ignorant1 He needs to know about the slaughter of Jews in the Holy City.
Why is the identity of William’s parents – UNKNOWN?
John Presco
‘The Defender of Harvard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
About William Wilson
He was born at Penrith, and removed to “of Wellsbourne, Lincolnshire, gentleman, who was buried in Saint George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, where he presumably was some sort of official, although there is no record of more than his burial there.”
The names of William’s parents is not currently known. No documentation exists that proves any parental relationships.
“William Wilson apparently moved from Welbourn to Windsor in Berkshire where he held a position of sufficient importance that he was called gentleman and was buried in the Chapel of Saint George by Windsor Castle.”
He was “‘late of Wellsbourne, Lincolnshire, gent., ‘ who is buried in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle.”
“The father of the Rev. William Wilson of Windsor was, as we have found, a William Wilson of Wellsbourne, In Lincolnshire, who died in Windsor Castle and was buried there in 1587.”
https://www.geni.com/people/William-Wilson/6000000000209545920
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony
Religious hegemony is a concept that describes the ways in which a dominant religious group, mainly Christians, disseminate their dominant social constructions as common sense, normative, or even universal, even though most of the world’s inhabitants are not Christian1. Christian hegemony as a system of domination is complex, shifting, and operates through the agency of individuals, families, church communities, denominations, parachurch organizations, civil institutions, and through decisions made by members of the ruling class and power elite2.
Learn more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_privilege
Christian privilege is a type of dominant group privilege where the unconscious or conscious attitudes and beliefs of Christians are advantageous to Christians over non-Christians.[2] Examples include opinions that non-Christian beliefs are inferior or dangerous, or that those who adhere to non-Christian beliefs are amoral, immoral, or sinful. Such prejudices pervade established social institutions, are reinforced by the broader society, and have evolved as part of its history.[3]
Alexis de Tocqueville the French political scientist and diplomat, traveled across the United States for nine months between 1831 and 1832, conducting research for his book Democracy in America. He noted a paradox of religion in the U.S. On the one hand, the United States promoted itself around the world as a country that valued both the “separation of church and state”, and religious freedom and tolerance. On the other hand, “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America”.[5]: pp.303–304 He explained this paradox by proposing that with no officially sanctioned governmental religion, Christian denominations were compelled to compete with one another and promote themselves in order to attract and keep parishioners, thereby making religion even stronger. While the government did not support Christian churches as such, Tocqueville argued that religion should be considered the first political institution because of the enormous influence that churches had on the political process.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)
British warships lack firepower to attack Houthi land targets
Former defence chief brands Royal Navy missile limitations ‘a scandal and completely unsatisfactory’
Edward Malnick, SUNDAY POLITICAL EDITOR and Sean Rayment27 January 2024 • 8:30pm
Related Topics
Britain’s warships cannot attack Houthi targets on land because they lack the firepower, in a situation described by former defence chiefs as a “scandal”.
None of the Royal Navy’s destroyers or frigates have the ability to fire missiles at targets on land, leaving the US to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF planes based 1,500 miles away.
A British defence source said HMS Diamond, the destroyer stationed in the Red Sea, had not joined retaliatory strikes on Houthi targets because it did not have “the capability to fire to land targets”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it had instead been “directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea”.
This weekend, a British-linked container ship caught fire after becoming the latest vessel targeted by Houthi rebels.
One former rear admiral suggested that Britain’s inability to strike the Iran-backed Houthi movement’s bases from warships highlighted how the Navy would be unable to “go toe to toe” with Chinese and Russian warships.
Currently, the only weapons on destroyers that can fire at other ships or land are artillery guns at the front of each vessel. While US destroyers can fire Tomahawk guided missiles at land targets, the UK’s only options for such strikes are deploying planes or submarines, five of which were reported to be unavailable at one point in the autumn.
Tobias Ellwood, the former chairman of the Commons defence committee, warned that the situation was unsustainable and urged Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, to conduct an urgent review. “We can’t continue to do this with a surface fleet that’s too small and cannot fire on land at range,” Mr Ellwood said.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, now the head of the Armed Forces, was among navy chiefs warning of a need to “speed up our acquisition processes” for weapons including “land attack missile systems” five years ago, when he was First Sea Lord.
During the first few months of Boris Johnson’s premiership, Sir Tony publicly advocated replacing Harpoon anti-ship missiles with a weapon that could be used to attack land targets.
However, the Harpoon was retired from the Navy last year and its temporary replacement, the Norwegian-made Naval Strike Missile, which can hit land targets, has only been installed on one vessel so far as part of a trial and has yet to be fired. Eventually, it will be rolled out to 11 frigates and destroyers before a new cruise missile system is expected to be introduced in 2028.
A former senior defence chief said that it was scandalous that Navy ships were not currently equipped with surface-to-surface missiles.
The ex-chief said: “It’s clearly a scandal and completely unsatisfactory. This is what happens when the Royal Navy is forced to make crucial decisions which can affect capability. The UK is now having to fly RAF jets thousands of miles to do the job of what a surface-to-surface missile can do.”
Advertisement
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.615.0_en.html#goog_1963471922
The disclosures come after Carlos Del Toro, the US navy secretary, warned that “given the near-term threats to the UK and US”, investments in the Royal Navy were “significantly important”.
MPs said the absence of land attack missiles left UK warships akin to “porcupines” – well-defended vessels with insufficient offensive capabilities.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former senior naval officer, said that the lack of a proper surface-to-surface missile had left the Navy exposed. He said: “The Naval Strike Missile is a fudge. It’s a sticking plaster to show we have some capability.
“The real worry is that we are not going to be able to go toe to toe with our Chinese and Russian opposite numbers in encounter actions and we are going to see more and more of these issues. We, the UK, haven’t thought about the scenarios within which those weapons might be used.
“You need to look at the effect you want to have and that effect should be that when a British frigate or destroyer turns up, the Chinese and the Russians say oh f—, it’s the Brits. That’s what a deterrence is all about.
“Instead they are going to say, it’s got a pop gun on the front, no surface-to-surface missiles and a helicopter which I can shoot down with a drone so why are we worried?
“The point is you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, and at the moment we have the knives and they have the guns.”
Mark Francois, the former armed forces minister, said: “The lack of a land attack missile from the Royal Navy’s surface fleet was specifically highlighted in a defence committee report some two years ago. It is encouraging that this missile is now on order but also disappointing that it is still not yet in operational service.”
Mr Francois added that it was “embarrassing” that one of the Navy’s three minesweeper vessels was taken out of action earlier this month when it collided with another British mine hunter in Bahrain. “The most important naval capability that we provide for our American allies are the three mine countermeasures vessels based in Bahrain,” he said.
On Saturday, Mr Shapps said: “It is our duty to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and we remain as committed to that cause as ever.”
A MoD spokesman said: “As with all coalition operations, commanders select the best equipment for the job. HMS Diamond is an air defence destroyer, which has been directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea. Equally, the Royal Air Force has the capability to strike land targets with high precision, which is why Typhoon aircraft strikes have reduced the Houthis ability to conduct these attacks.”
An MoD source added: “We have already shown with our Typhoon capability that we are a leading force among our allies in defending the Red Sea. We are proud of our brave service men and women for all they are doing … it’s nonsense to suggest anything except that we are playing a key role.”
Final assault[edit]
On 17 June 1099, the Crusaders heard about the arrival of English and Genoese ships at the port of Jaffa. The English and Genoese sailors had brought all the necessary material with them for the construction of the siege equipment. Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders procured timber from the nearby forests. Under the command of Guglielmo Embriaco and Gaston of Béarn, the Crusaders began the construction of their siege weapons. They constructed the finest siege equipment of the 11th century in almost three weeks. This included: two massive wheel-mounted siege towers, a battering ram with an iron-clad head, and numerous scaling ladders and a series of portable wattle screens; now they were ready to attack[14] The Fatimids kept an eye on the preparation by the Franks and they set up their mangonels on the wall in the firing range once an assault began.
On 14 July 1099, the Crusaders launched their attack. Godfrey and his allies were positioned towards the Northern wall of Jerusalem, and their priority was to break through the outer curtain of the walls of the city. By the end of the day they penetrated the first line of defense. On the South Raymond of Toulouse’s forces were met with ferocious resistance by the Fatimids. On 15 July the assault recommenced in the Northern front; Godfrey and his allies gained success and the Crusader Ludolf of Tournai was the first to mount the wall. The Franks quickly gained a foothold on the wall, and as the city’s defenses collapsed, waves of panic shook the Fatimids.
In the southwest area the Provencals managed to storm the city walls, which later led to the Crusaders calling the gate they built in this area, Beaucaire Gate.[15]
Aftermath[edit]
Crusaders enter Jerusalem[edit]
On 15 July 1099, the crusaders made their way into the city through the tower of David and began massacring large numbers of the inhabitants, Muslims and Jews alike. The Fatimid governor of the city, Iftikhar Ad-Daulah, managed to escape.[16] According to eyewitness accounts the streets of Jerusalem were filled with blood. How many people were killed is a matter of debate, with the figure of 70,000 given by the Muslim historian Ibn al-Athir (writing c.1200) considered to be a significant exaggeration; 40,000 is plausible, given the city’s population had been swollen by refugees fleeing the advance of the crusading army.[17]
Massacre[edit]
The aftermath of the siege led to the mass slaughter of thousands of Muslims and Jews which contemporaneous sources suggest was savage and widespread and to the conversion of Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount into Christian shrines.[18][19]
Atrocities committed against the inhabitants of cities taken by storm after a siege were normal in ancient[20] and medieval warfare by both Christians and Muslims. The crusaders had already done so at Antioch, and Fatimids had done so themselves at Taormina, at Rometta, and at Tyre. However, it is speculated that the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, both Muslims and Jews, may have exceeded even these standards.[21][22]
Muslims[edit]
Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, and the Temple Mount area generally. According to the Gesta Francorum, speaking only of the Temple Mount area, “…[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles…” According to Raymond of Aguilers, also writing solely of the Temple Mount area, ” in the Temple and porch of Solomon men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.” Writing about the Temple Mount area alone, Fulcher of Chartres, who was not an eyewitness to the Jerusalem siege because he had stayed with Baldwin in Edessa at the time, says: “In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.”[23]
The eyewitness Gesta Francorum states that some people were spared. Its anonymous author wrote,”When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished.”[24] Later the same source writes, “[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone. But Raymond caused the Emir and the others who were with him to be conducted to Ascalon, whole and unhurt.”[24]
Another eyewitness source, Raymond of Aguilers, reports that some Muslims survived. After recounting the slaughter on the Temple Mount, he reports of some who “took refuge in the Tower of David, and, petitioning Count Raymond for protection, surrendered the Tower into his hands.”[25] These Muslims left with the Fatimid governor for Ascalon.[26] A version of this tradition is also known to the later Muslim historian Ibn al-Athir (10, 193–95), who recounts that after the city was taken and pillaged: “A band of Muslims barricaded themselves into the Oratory of David (Mihrab Dawud) and fought on for several days. They were granted their lives in return for surrendering. The Franks honored their word and the group left by night for Ascalon.”[27] One Cairo Geniza letter also refers to some Jewish residents who left with the Fatimid governor.[28]
Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he was unable to prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. Additionally, the crusaders claimed the Muslim holy sites of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque as important Christian sites, and renamed them Templum Domini and Templum Salomonis, respectively. In 1141, the Templum Domini would be consecrated, and the Templum Solomonis would become the headquarters for the Knights Templar.[29]
Albert of Aachen, who personally was not present but wrote using independent interviews conducted with survivors back in Europe, wrote that even beyond the first round of slaughter that accompanied the fall of Jerusalem, there was another round, “On the third day after the victory judgement was pronounced by the leaders and everyone seized weapons and surged forth for a wretched massacre of all the crowd of gentiles which was still left…whom they had previously spared for the sake of money and human pity”.[30] The number killed is not specified, nor is this massacre related in any other contemporary sources.
Although the crusaders killed many of the Muslim and Jewish residents, eyewitness accounts (Gesta Francorum, Raymond of Aguilers, and the Cairo Geniza documents) demonstrate that some Muslim and Jewish residents were allowed to live, as long as they left Jerusalem.[31]
Jews[edit]
Further information: History of the Jews and the Crusades
Jews had fought side-by-side with Muslim soldiers to defend the city, and as the crusaders breached the outer walls, the Jews of the city retreated to their synagogue to “prepare for death”.[33] According to the Muslim chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, “The Jews assembled in their synagogue, and the Franks burned it over their heads.”[34] A contemporary Jewish communication confirms the destruction of the synagogue, though it does not corroborate that any Jews were inside it when it was burned.[35] This letter was discovered among the Cairo Geniza collection in 1975 by historian Shelomo Dov Goitein.[36] Historians believe that it was written just two weeks after the siege, making it “the earliest account on the conquest in any language.”[36] The letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon from the Cairo Geniza indicates that some prominent Jews held for ransom by the crusaders were freed when the Ascalon Karaite Jewish community paid the requested sums of money.
The US Navy is in the thick of the Red Sea fight. But there’s one warship class that’s missing
The Littoral Combat Ship is naval deadweight utterly unsuited to the hard fighting around Yemen
DAVID AXE25 January 2024 • 4:47pm
Related Topics
The US Navy has surged warships into the Middle East in response to the growing threat that Yemen’s Houthi rebels pose to commercial shipping passing through regional waters.
But there’s one ship type the American fleet isn’t surging into the region. The troubled Littoral Combat Ship. Farcically, the LCS is one of the more numerous ship types in the fleet. But it’s totally unsuitable for hard fighting. And the fighting around Yemen has been very hard.
That the US Navy has left behind its 26 LCSs is the latest humiliation for military leaders who advocated for the ship during its long development – and the latest reminder that the American fleet is, in practice, much smaller than it appears to be on paper.
If the LCSs can’t fight the Houthis, who can they fight? That likely answer is: no one. The US-led naval campaign in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and the Persian Gulf gradually took shape in the weeks after Hamas terrorists raided southern Israel and killed or kidnapped hundreds of people.
Advertisement
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.615.0_en.html#goog_1853161104
Advertisement : 14 sec
While Israeli forces mobilised for their brutal invasion of Gaza, American and allied warships steamed into the waters around Israel in the hope of preventing a wider regional escalation. Deterrence failed, however: Iran-backed Houthi militants based in Yemen began boarding and bombarding commercial ships taking the global shortcut through the Suez Canal.
In their first major attack, on Nov. 19, Houthi fighters riding in a helicopter seized the 48,000-ton car-carrier M/V Galaxy Leader, taking all 25 crew hostage. Over the next two months, Houthis took aim at another 41 commercial ships with drones, rockets, missiles and boarding teams.
The threat has compelled shippers to divert much of their trade away from the Middle East. To avoid Yemeni waters, a commercial vessel traveling between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans cannot pass through the Suez Canal. Instead, it must sail around South Africa – adding 4,000 miles and great expense to its trip.
An American-led fleet is trying to contain the crisis. It’s a powerful force organised around the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and reinforced by eight other large American warships: four destroyers, two amphibious assault ships, a cruiser and a cruise-missile-armed submarine.
Advertisement
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.615.0_en.html#goog_1853161106
Advertisement : 9 sec
Allied forces have shot down around 20 Houthi ballistic and cruise missiles and around 80 drones and destroyed three Houthis boats. And in a series of air strikes and cruise-missile raids beginning on Jan. 11, these same forces have targeted dozens of Houthi missile launch sites and a radar installation.
Despite representing a fifth of the US surface combatant fleet, which also includes the destroyers and cruisers, no LCSs have joined the campaign. It’s not hard to understand why. The LCS program originated in the 1990s and began spending real money, and building ships, in the early 2000s – an era where land warfare dominated Pentagon planning. The idea was to equip the US fleet with 50 or more vessels that could sail fast in shallow, near-shore littorals. To keep them small, their weaponry would be light.
The Pentagon’s $37-billion commitment to the LCS was a profound misreading of the future security environment. With no long-range air-defenses, the 3,000-ton LCSs can’t protect themselves from the Houthis’ Iranian-made missiles and drones – to say nothing of protecting commercial ships that might be spread out across thousands of square miles.
And with no long-range land-attack weapons, the LCSs can’t strike back at the Houthis, either. If the LCSs are unsuitable for defense and offense against a regional militant group, how would they fare against a much bigger and more sophisticated foe like China?
Not well. The LCSs suffer a “lack of sufficient warfighting capability against a peer competitor in China,” Adm. Mike Gilday, then the Chief of Naval Operations, told US Senators two years ago, as he sought permission to retire half of the 38 planned LCSs – despite many of them being brand-new.
So far, the US Congress has permitted the US Navy to decommission nine LCSs. The fleet is scrambling to upgrade many of the remaining 29 vessels in order to make them relevant in a world where even militant groups have missiles and drones.
Some of the LCSs are getting long-range anti-ship missiles that, in a pinch, might work against targets on land. The US Navy is also experimenting with long-range anti-air missiles that, bolted to an LCS’s helicopter pad, could give the ship some ability to protect itself and nearby ships.
But these are half-measures that might lend a few ships a fraction of the firepower that a destroyer possesses. The Houthis didn’t target Middle East shipping to prove that the American fleet’s shallow-water surface combatants were hollow ships. But their attacks have had that effect.
For as long as the US Navy hangs onto its LCSs, the ships will mostly be dead weight: naval tonnage that contributes little or nothing to an actual war.
Rosamond Press 
Leave a comment