At last - a UK political figure who talks some sense IMHO.
Well, I can’t argue with that but I’m sure others can. Something has to stop us playing into the hands of our enemies by becoming monsters ourselves.
That’s what I never understood about the US and how it handled Sept 11. The terrorists crashed planes into the buildings to make a statement and damage the US. Everytime Bush and his clan open their mouths they gabber it like a bunch of parrots. 911, 911, 911 (squaaaak) 911. This brings attention to the fact the terrorists made a rather large statement and damaged the USA. If the President makes changes to the law which effects US citizens, this drives the point home. As long as the US keeps parroting 911, 911, 911, the terrorists are getting just what they want and winning.
I’d say, for the terrorists, Sept 11th worked far better than they ever expected. I’d say not only was it one of the largest terrorist attacks, it was the single most successful attack. Bush played right into their hands. Bush also proved terrorist attacks on the US can be very effective.
More effective. Zero tolerance on terror. Go after the people behind Sept 11th and do not quit or waver until they are found and killed or put on trial. If the US went after the terrorists like a pissed off pitbull after a rabbit, the statement made by the terrorists would be moot. The US would have said “That’s how you want to play huh? Fine. We’re coming for you and you better pray you die before we find you. We will not stop until we find you and rip you limb from limb”. Don’t drag other countries into it. Don’t use it as an excuse to do something else. Don’t make promises you don’t intend to keep (IE: “Dead or alive well get him”) Focus on the terrorists and get them.
Instead of the US being an angry pitbull, they got a sobby little school girl.
I don’t want anger. I want determination and resolve not to let terrorists win by undermining the values and institutions we allegedly hold dear. Anger leads to bad decision-making.
Nooooo, I won’t have that. You are completely off the mark to say “At last - a UK political figure who talks some sense IMHO.”
The former Foreign Secretary and leader of the house of commons, Robin Cook RIP, resigned over the war and after much debate, back in 2003. There have been many others as well.
Other than that, the thoughts you are reflecting here by the British DPP are patently obvious.
OK I tried to argue … sorry, thats all I could come up with.
Cook and the others resigned over the Iraq War and the handling of Parliament and manipulation of intelligence rather than the whole ‘War on Terror’ Orwell-speak if I recall but I take your point.
Damn fine resignation speech he made too:
‘Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.’
‘Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?’
‘I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain’s positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.’
To quote Richard Huffman from The Gun Speaks: The Baader-Meinhof Gang at the Dawn of Terror
One of the aims of terrorism is to engender the kind of oppressive backlash that seems to be happening with the erosion of civil liberties.
Excellent stuff. I think this is my favorite section of the speech:
Memo to Bush, Gonzalez, et al.: Read and digest.
Richard Huffman’s speculative touchy feely ruminations about the aims of terrorism hardly rate as authoritative.
I can’t recall any of the numerous psychopaths who speak on behalf of modern terrorist groups claim that they want an oppressive backlash to hit back at them.
More usually they clearly identify and describe the objectives of their movement and justify the murders they commit on the grounds that it will help their movement advance towards its final objective.
IIRC, their “final objective” includes a general war between the Islamic world and the Western world – which they think they can win, because Allah is on their side. Everything we do in Iraq and elsewhere to stir up even more resentment and bitterness brings us one step closer to obliging them.
If the first part of your statement is true then the terrorists, their enablers and their supporters, consider both of us to be legitimate targets in a war zone merely by virtue of the fact that we exist.
The mess in Iraq would probably not add or detract anything to that situation.
Except that it builds up their numbers. Every Coalition soldier in Iraq is an al-Qaeda recruiter.
The object therefore must be to minimise the number of terrorists, enablers and supporters. There is every reason to think that the Iraq mess will have the opposite effect.
One of the criticisms of Kerry I heard in 2004, from one of the right-wing talking heads, was to the effect that “He’d treat terrorists like a law enforcement problem.” Sounds good to me.
That’s fine, as far as it goes, but there are some problems with it, among which, most terrorists are in places you can’t serve warrants on.
Some are in places such as Italy, where warrants could be used.
But none of them, since late 2001, are in places that are legitimate military targets. They’re a network of underground cells. Using an army to fight them is like using a machine gun to rid a house of termites.
The Iraq situation makes no difference. Neither, for that matter, does the existence or otherwise of Israel.
Without Iraq there would be the same low intensity (for the present) warfare being waged in various parts of Europe, America, Southern Thailand, Indonesia, Southern Phillipines, India (particularly Kashmir), and so on.
Well gee, if you say so.
Don’t be so harsh. At least not without checking the colour of the sky on Aq’s world. I’m guessing green.