Blair v Terrorism - Who Won?
Comment at end of page
4th November, 2007
TERRORISM RULES OK?
Yip! To answer my own question. Though it’s not over yet, so far the terrorists are ‘way ahead.
ANOTHER BLAIR HEAD ON A PLATE?
The head I am referring to this time is that of Sir Ian Blair, Met Police Commissioner. Surely it can’t be just his name the press, the conservatives and liberal democrats dislike? I wouldn’t have expected anything different from the leaderless Liberal Democrats, who look for a human rights issue round every corner - and surprise surprise - invariably find one. But the TORIES? What’s the matter with these people?
For further proof of the flight of good old British common sense we only have to look at the reaction of the press after the Jean de Menezes court case.
ARE WE “BRAINWASHED” BRITS?
It astounds me how little attention is being paid to the real villains of the piece here.
Put as simply as I can, in order that the myopic can see - jihadist terrorists are the problem, not our police OR their commissioner.
ISLAMIST FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE BEATING US HANDS DOWN IN THE PROPAGANDA WARS
It’s my contention that the Islamists know how to get at our naive liberal society. They have worked us out, but we, on the other hand, have not been so clear-headed. We have been unable, or unwilling to see the wood for the trees.
On Radio 4’s Analysis this week Dr David Kilkullen said that he believed it is more accurate to describe Al Qaida as a strategic “insurgency” organisation rather than a terrorist organisation. In other words, their aim is to move the west to action which will in turn provoke normal law-abiding muslims to civil unrest or other action against their governments worldwide.
This, if true, is some kind of strategy.
And their use of the internet and other methods of propaganda is streets ahead of ours. From this I glean that the whole campaign of counter-insurgency needs this:
1. The public to believe and trust that we DO have an enemy and a fight on our hands. At the moment, many don’t.
2. Our intelligent use of propaganda/publicity/the media AS WE SHOULD! We should NOT be afraid of this. THIS IS OUR WEAKEST LINK!!! The liberal press.
3. Re-naming the fight against terrorism - which might be generational, as Tony Blair has already warned us. “War” (on terror, or on islamists, or on terrorism) is, possibly inaccurate and hands the enemy a propaganda tool. It also allows us to leave it to the army. It’s not just THEIR fight, but ours too.
Perhaps I can suggest - THE QUEST - as in the video I put together for Blair’s task in the Middle East?
Though how on earth we get the liberal press on board any of this is anyone’s guess. They don’t trust politicians to catch a cold, much less identify the issues!
Strong, trusted political leadership? Sorry, we’ve already lost that.
COME BACK BLAIR!
Interesting too that “Pakistan is the next big place”, said the Australian speaker Dr David Kilkullen [Analysis, just a day or two before president Musharraf declared martial law.] Europe too was mentioned as a future hot-spot.
THE PROPAGANDIST INSURGENTS
The terrorists have caused us to change the rules under which we operate. That is a fact, and that is the only fact I will allow these animals.
But instead of being secure in our own trust of our democracy, its pillars and its mainstays - the law, courts and police - and being willing to adjust temporarily without fear of the world coming to an end, what do we do?
We cry “FOUL” and let loose the dogs of war - on ourselves.
It’s pathetic, shameful and in the end could be self-destructive.
This Times report on former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove shows, if it is accurate, how far the authorities have lost the trust of the people.
LONDON The former head of MI6, who was responsible for providing the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, admitted that “too much weight” was given to the secret material that his service supplied.
Sir Richard Dearlove, who retired as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service more than three years ago, said he did not believe that such a situation would occur again, although there were parallels now with America’s warnings over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Sir Richard was speaking after giving a lecture at the London School of Economics.
Faced by a barrage of questions from the audience about MI6’s role in convincing the Government that Iraq had secret weapons of mass destruction, Sir Richard said: “The intelligence that was released was believed to be correct when it was released.” He added: “There were no human (intelligence) resources in Iraq who could have told us authoritatively that there were no weapons of mass destruction.”
Personally I’m glad I have no intention of standing for public office. If this treatment of Sir Richard is anything to go by, I have most definitely lost my trust in the voter.
And, guess what?!
IT’S ALL THE FAULT OF THE PRINTED PRESS
Of course it is. They are the conduit by which everything is directed towards the gullible … er … voters.
The press’s aim is to persuade the electorate that a particular policy, politician or party is beyond the pale and the only remedy for truth, reconciliation and worldwide peace is the other party (theirs, of course). They like to pretend that their constant torrent of opinion, comment and abuse rises, as pure as blessed nature, from their fulcrum of honesty, probity and democratic credentials.
It’s all rubbish.
It’s party politics, impure and simple, and our printed press runs on it.
So if Sir Ian Blair survives, which Blair head can we claim next?
Tags: dearlove, ian blair, kilkullen, press, Terrorism, tony, wins, won
