- Current Latest Page
- All Contents of Site – Index
- New blog – The Feral Press
- Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
Or – Tweet this post
18th May 2011
It IS a “war on terror”
FIRST CAME THE TERROR, THEN CAME THE WAR AGAINST IT
It was NOT the other way round. We who believe in standing and fighting terrorism didn’t CAUSE the terrorism. Even if we had caused it, it is our responsibility to fight it. In his memoir, A Journey, Tony Blair refers to this issue of muddled semantics by those questioning George Bush’s phrase. Blair says, “if it isn’t a war on terror, what is it?”
The phrase “the so-called war on terror” is still regurgitated regularly by our so-called liberal literati. Our media, especially of the left, clearly don’t accept there is such a thing as a war. Or perhaps they do not accept that there is such a thing as terror! Or perhaps they do not accept that, even given the existence of terrorism, there is a need for a war against it.
See this early list of terrorist atrocities (dating from 1929 but stopping prior to 9/11.)
Why don’t the so-called thinkers make up their minds and say what they really think instead of hiding behind a meaningless and ambiguous phrase?
What they mean, surely, is –
“… this so-called terror”
or perhaps –
“… this so-called war”
or perhaps –
“this war, which is not against terror but against Muslims/Islam”
In other words – there’s no terror, or there is futility in fighting a war against it, or we are at war for different reasons than those which we state.
The reason they can’t or won’t admit their real opinions? It’s got to be the third of the options above. The other two are impossible to defend, even for the deniers.
Frankly, our pc media trust the poor hard-done by terrorists’ tales of victimisation more, far more than they trust western interpretations of the political facts.
BUT THEY “LIED” TO US
Many press minds have been polluted by the idea that we in the west were “lied to” by such as Bush and Blair. From that position anything else, even the obvious, is tainted by this bias. It’s not as though terrorists ever lie, after all, is it?
If such as Jeremy Paxman, whose Newsnight last night was one of the worst I have yet had the misfortune of watching (see here below) are so blinded by their pompous and juvenile distaste for western politicians’ so-called “lies” it’s time they opened their eyes to the facts of life, politics, the media, terror and war.
At least they’d be being honest for once. We could then put them into the correct bolt-hole.
1. Those that don’t accept there is any Islamist fundamentalist terror.
2. Those that don’t believe there is any need for a war.
3. Those that accept there is a war but also believe it is not a war being fought for the reasons given; the pro-conspiracy theorists, in other words.
When they find the relevant bolt-hole they should jump into it with courage and leave behind the weaselly words. Let’s hope it’s not the same sort of bolt-hole either Saddam or bin Laden chose to dig themselves into.
Paxman, 17th May 2011 Newsnight (watch here). The day the Queen started her 4-day visit to Ireland Newsnight didn’t mention it. Indeed. they were determined not to mention it. They didn’t even do the ‘papers tomorrow’ as they usually do, presumably just to show they weren’t mentioning the Queen. It’d be imossible to mention the Queen’s visit to Ireland without mentioning the fact that Tony Blair and his government had a very big hand in making this visit possible. And whatever the BBC, in this case Newsnight is for it’s not for applauding Tony Blair. For anything, even for his greatest achievement.
Instead the whole programme was given up to this irrelevancy:
“IN WHAT SORT OF COURT SHOULD WE HAVE TRIED OSAMA BIN LADEN?
FGS. Gimme strength!
1. On the fate of Osama bin Laden, Normblog has this thoughtful post – Both “either” and “or”
“But the US also had the right, under the laws of war, to kill him as an enemy combatant. Equally, the killing in war of key Nazi leaders or functionaries was a lawful and a justified option. Either-or.”
3. ‘A Just war’: In preparation for the Q & A panel with Jarrod McKenna, I read through Tony Blair’s 1999 speech to the Chicago Economic Club that Michael Sheldrick posted. You can access this speech here http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html
On a basic level, globalisation is international interdependence. Instability in one country will affect others. In respect to intervention in conflicts, Blair posits that the point at which intervention is acceptable is when there are “threats to international peace and security.” It is by no means an ideal answer, but that is the world we live in.
Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)