Blair v Terrorism – Who Won?

by
  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.” See this recent signature comment
  • Comment at end

    Ban Blair-Baiting

    GoPetition

    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?




    Free Hit Counter

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

    2 Responses to “Blair v Terrorism – Who Won?”

    1. Andrew Watt Says:

      Hi,

      You asked who won in the contest between Blair and Terrorism.

      Why?

      Read the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism ) Act 1993.

      Pay careful attention to Section 2(2).

      And think what the much vaunted regime change (by force) in Iraq actually is.

      Got it?

      An “act of terrorism”.

      Game, set and match to Terrorism, I think.

      Visit the Chilcot’s Cheating Us blog for more.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Hello again, Mr Watt,

        Your legally semantics blog is fun, and is written well, to be fair.

        But you’re wrong, of course, on several basic assumptions taken from the Acts you quote, clear to anyone with an interest in disproving you, or the time to do so.

        Since you are not acting on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, nor I for the Defence, we won’t rehearse the arguments out here.

        But nice try on the ‘Tony’s A Terrorist’ fun and games.

        Don’t you realise, he’s NOT, even in the misinformed ‘Court of Public Opinion’?

        He’s only a “liar, oh and a “war criminal”.

        Don’t you reckon that’s enough to lock him up for life?

        As for this, ref “regime change” –

        And think what the much vaunted regime change (by force) in Iraq actually is.

        Got it?

        An “act of terrorism”.

        Er, no.

        (2) In this section “acts of terrorism” means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.

        Arguably perhaps in the US, where it was stated as a reason. Not here in Britain, where it wasn’t.

        And quite how you equate “reinsurance obligations” which this Act deals with, with the conclusion that “terrorism won” will take more persuasion than THIS little semantics argument and cross-references links try to make.

        My question – “Who won” – was centred around the press debate, in case you hadn’t realised it. In the press, the end result of their determination to prove Blair a “liar” etc is that terrorism perforce is raised to a debateble concept as just as worthy in its own terms as the decisions of a democratically elected government.

        Terrorism lost, even if you’d have preferred the real terrorists to win in order that Tony spends the rest of his life staring at a prison wall.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s