From The Evening Standard:
The former prime minister said that there had been a failure to challenge the "narrative" that Islam was oppressed by the West which was fuelling extremism around the world. He said too many people accepted the extremists' analysis that the military actions taken by the West following the 9/11 attacks were directed at countries because they were Muslim and that it supported Israel because Israelis were Jews while Palestinians were Muslims.
"We should wake up to the absurdity of our surprise at the prevalence of this extremism," he said, "Look at the funds it receives. Examine the education systems that succour it. And then measure, over the years, the paucity of our counter-attack in the name of peaceful co-existence. We have been outspent, outmanoeuvred and out-strategised."
Speaking in New York to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Mr Blair warned that it was impossible to defeat extremism "without defeating the narrative that nurtures it". Moderate Muslims who believed in co-existence and tolerance were, he said, being undermined by the unwillingness of the West to take on the extremists' arguments.
"We think if we sympathise with the narrative - that essentially this extremism has arisen as a result, partly, of our actions - we meet it halfway, we help the modernisers to be more persuasive," he said, "We don't. We indulge it and we weaken them. Worse, a reaction springs up amongst our people that we are pandering to this narrative and they start to resent Muslims as a whole."
I see little point in fisking this as anybody who has read this far is probably well aware as to who was deliberately provoking an Islamist counter-reaction; while pandering to them and funding them at the same time, and, in a miraculous feat of triangulation, stoking resentment at the favourable treatment of Islam and its imposition on our own country.
Labour news: Sue Gray and budget update
8 hours ago
16 comments:
At least he's stopped all the 'good' and 'evil' stuff.
Personally I can see Bin Laden's point. He wants a united middle east superpower, that isn't by corrupt coke-snorting hypocrites.
We want a divided middle east where they expend their energies getting at each other's throats.
It's a policy that has worked for over 100 years, although I can see why OBL has issues with it.
Does TB believe his own bullshit or something? I think he's on some kind of gigantic guilt trip.
Blair partly believes, partly does their bidding in getting this street violence thingy going and partly is not in the real world. Sackers has something on that today.
It does seem that there are multiple provocations these days and some sort of violence is around the corner.
SL, OBL is even madder than TB.
IAJM, nah, that seems about right.
JH, I will go and read.
Yes, but that was different. Labour hoped to get up to 2m Muslim votes, preferably direct from the office, so it doesn't count.
Surely you see that.
WOAR, what was different? That may be a reason for doing part of what he did, but doesn't explain why he was doing three entirely contradictory and self-defeating things.
Oh yeah... extremists. Despite the fact that the middle east is full of governments who regularly clamp down on political rallies, they did nothing about people celebrating 9/11.
And Blair and Bush did a terrible thing by establishing Islam as the only religion in Iraq, something which Saddam Hussein had never done. Religious types would rather see anything but aetheism take over.
Personally, I'd have marched into Kabul and my first action would have been to legalise booze, whores and porn, and opening up tv networks to junk. People would soon lose interest in religion. You'd have to police it for a few years as the religious types would try to protect their power, but the money would run out. Blair's too much of a boy scout to understand about how to channel the aggression of angry young men.
It's well to remember that the Labour party is a coalition. The Christian Socialist/Liberal tradition believes that the state has the power to bring positive change including in the third world. The more modern Gramscian Nihilists believe the west is invariably wicked and the people of the third world noble savages who can do no wrong or cannot be criticised.
Successes like the Bosnian intervention made the former tradition stronger in the Labour Party. The failure to bring a similarly quick result to Iraq and Afghanistan made the latter stronger.
Whilst I can't deny the hypocrisy of the Labour Government's schizophrenic approach, I don't actually disagree with the contents of this speech (or at least the parts quoted by you).
The Labour Party now, academia in general and large parts of the media like the BBC wholly indulge the Islamists narrative. It must surely be possible to think our prosecution of the current wars incompetent or foolhardy without agreeing with that narrative.
Is it really beyond the wit of man to find a legal way to hang the Loathsome Wee Twat?
I broadly agree with TDK - what Bliar was saying was roughly on the money, but him saying it devalues all of it.
The man has one agenda, the promotion of himself. He wanted his Falklands moment and didn't care how he got it. He's the epitome of the failure of Political Class to provide any true leadership, instead simply seeking its own self agrandisment and wealth (at our expense). The Political Class agenda reached its pinnacle under him, and it now looks as though it's in a bit of a decline (EU excepted). He used his wars to further his own myth building. The man is an utter hypocrite - and a liar.
"but doesn't explain why he was doing three entirely contradictory and self-defeating things."
Each one was to his advantage: provoking a reaction gave cause for a war. Wars, so long as you can pretend you won, are good for politicians' prestige; Pandering and funding keeps the loony left quiet and keeps him in with them and stoking resentment keeps the Daily Mail readers quite and keeps him in with them. win-win-win
IAJM - Cancer would rob the world of the spectacle of seeing him kicked to death, which would be a shame IMO.
JT, good plan.
TDK, I think L nails it. What he says may be part of the truth, it's the fact that HE is saying it that stinks.
D, probably not, but maybe we can ship him off to The Hague in the vague hope that he does a Slobodan?
B, I phrased that badly. You explain admirably WHY he did it but not HOW he got away with it. Say what you like about George W Bush but I don't think he pandered to Islam in his own country at least.
TDK, I think L nails it. What he says may be part of the truth, it's the fact that HE is saying it that stinks.
Well he is loathsome and pointing that out is no problem, but only in the context of pointing out why his valid argument is a rhetorical ploy. Otherwise we play the man and not the argument.
The value in blogs is they escape the infantile focus on personalities which is now universal in the media. Blair the empty suit and Cameron the empty suit are both the result of the politics of personality!
TDK, I don't think he's making an argument, I think he is stating 'facts', some of which are not true, such as this:
"He said too many people accepted the extremists' analysis that the military actions taken by the West following the 9/11 attacks were directed at countries because they were Muslim"
How many people accept this? I'm not sure I do and either way it's irrelevant. If so, do 'too many' people accept it, or roughly the 'right amount' of people?
IIRC, we did Afgh because of 9/11 (quite rightly) and Iraq because GWB had a grudge against Saddam (he had a justified grudge but IMHO that did not justify invading, although to be fair, things seem to be sorting themselves out again in Iraq).
and Iraq because GWB had a grudge against Saddam
I'm not sure about that one. I think they were just itching to get in there and overthrow the regime before Iran/Russia did.
There weren't any objections raised from the Sauds either from what I remember.
It's all about carving the place up and keeping it divided, weak and feeble, it always has been.
People like Blair come and go, but the generals and mandarins are institutionalised as is their thinking on such matters.
TDK "The more modern Gramscian Nihilists believe the west is invariably wicked"
Do you perhaps mean 'intrinsically' or 'inately' wicked?
Post a Comment