Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Cameron 'War Raised Terror Risk'

Cameron now saying it ' War Raised Terror Risk' (Times). My God, I agree with the Conservative leader.

''The Conservative leader directly contradicted the Government’s official line — that the invasion has had no impact on the terror threat — as he announced the party’s policy report into the security threat. He said that he was in agreement with the report, written by the Conservatives’ independent security policy committee, which said that “the war on terror has led to more terror”.
Asked whether he thought that involvement in Iraq had increased the risk of terrorism, he said that it was just “a statement of fact”.
''

See also Bringing It Home ( UK policies aid Muslim Extremism) from DEMOS ( part-funded by the Government). See also today' foreign policy report from Cahtham House ( BBC - Blair failed to influence Bush), see US election mid-term results, see US official's recent claims that the UK 'got nothing back from the Bush relationship, the harrowing judgement about the death of a young British soldier who was not given body armour - judged 'inexcusable' yesterday, see the latest death toll, and shake your head that the bloody fools in Government did not listen, would not listen, and have shamefully turned their face away from our protests ever since.

I remember when the largest day of global protest ever happened, over a million taking to the streets, many more millions worldwide, crying out against the expected horrific consequences, the loss of blood and treasure that we knew would come from such hubris and mendacity and selective blindness, from those swept along by the arrogant neoconservative ideology and the will to power. Or the lure of celebrity, the posturing shoulder to shoulder on the world stage. Or 'the voice of God'. Or the Medal of Honour. Or whatever the hell it was.

We might have still needed to go war, but we should have gone lawfully, carefully, preparedly, with world support, and after humbly listening to what the people living in the Middle East said they wanted as help.

Instead, we have this utter disaster, which has bred more disasters, and spilled endless blood, and created a vortex of hate, and yet the Government will not accept their faults, and will not accept the link between their actions and the consequences. For shame.

UPDATE: The Sharpener on the latest foreign policy report

18 Comments:

Blogger jailhouselawyer said...

One of the charges the government levelled at me in the prisoners votes case, was that prisoners because of their crime had lost the moral authority to vote. However, moral authority has never been a qualification for the franchise.

On the other hand, it has been argued that Tony Blair did not have the moral authority to go to war with Iraq. It was also unlawful under international law.

When I first heard the words war on terror following the Twin Towers, I was concerned at how vague it was and how it could be interpreted to cover acts of aggression by a State. Iraq was such an example. 7/7 was a direct consequence of that action. It has raised the chances of attacks. It is not a war on terror when so many innocents are killed or injured. The buck must stop somewhere, and that is in the Whitehouse and No 10.

December 19, 2006 9:36 pm  
Blogger jailhouselawyer said...

One of the charges the government levelled at me in the prisoners votes case, was that prisoners because of their crime had lost the moral authority to vote. However, moral authority has never been a qualification for the franchise.

On the other hand, it has been argued that Tony Blair did not have the moral authority to go to war with Iraq. It was also unlawful under international law.

When I first heard the words war on terror following the Twin Towers, I was concerned at how vague it was and how it could be interpreted to cover acts of aggression by a State. Iraq was such an example. 7/7 was a direct consequence of that action. It has raised the chances of attacks. It is not a war on terror when so many innocents are killed or injured. The buck must stop somewhere, and that is in the Whitehouse and No 10.

December 19, 2006 9:38 pm  
Anonymous etroni said...

Love your blog but surely we can't be supporting David smirky Cameron? This is all just targic. Can you imagine him on a global platform? At the G8? Arghh...

December 20, 2006 10:12 am  
Blogger Bob Piper said...

Cameron now saying it 'War Raised Terror Risk'

Pity he didn't say it and think about it before he and the overwhelming majority of Tories voted for it. Charlie Kennedy has the right to be smug... Cameron doesn't.

December 20, 2006 10:33 am  
Anonymous Rohen said...

You see all those bits of concrete protecting the houses of parliament?

Its not for the terrorists its for us the people who vote them in, to keep us out and from being able to exercise our democratic rights to protest and free speech and to prevent us from storming parliament because our so called representatives have grown fat and lazy and want an embarrassing big fat 66% pay rise. I suppose you can tell that I'm rather annoyed with the government. Rachel; do you want to start a political party so that we can gain access to the house of commons 'cos' then we can vote the lazy sods out next time.

December 20, 2006 11:05 am  
Anonymous Andy Ramblings said...

least we forget that the 'war on terror' argument was used by Karimov
to suppress lawful demonstrations against his regime.
Oh and by the way, anyone see the mini-series 'The State Within' So awfully familiar.

December 20, 2006 11:39 am  
Blogger Newmania said...

Nonsense Piper.To abandon the US at that point would have been madness.

December 20, 2006 1:02 pm  
Blogger kobwebby said...

OMG, I think I agree with Callmedave!

I am not so sure Rachel, I think Cameron call me Dave agrees with you actually, well, you and about 40 million+ other people in this country of course. Or another 26783383 (reducing) that have/had no say in the matter!!!

I did note that his dialogue was rather vague, tentative and non committal though, could he be just keeping his cards close to his chest until "the big happy day", or is he testing public opinion maybe?

Mind you whatever party is un-voted-in next time round will have a serious amount of back peddling/stabbing to do, virtually all MPs unanimously voted to commit to an illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, I can think of only a handful of MPs that risked voting against an invasion, and a couple of those were taken as calculated career risks in case the vote landed the other way… Or perhaps the pull of the gravy-train was just too great.

Still, it is a move in the right direction, in a non-committal tentative, round-abouty, thinky-tank sort of style. Anyway, who are these tank-thinkers, do they have qualifications to prove that they can think, and how did they manage to get into government without looking suspicious? Perhaps the ”Mine is the first generation able to contemplate the possibility that we may live our entire lives without going to war or sending our children to war” Rt Hon Tony Blair should have some too.

I just find it strange that we should express wonder and amazement (not) when a politician expresses something that is so blatantly obvious to the vast majority of people, the very people that they purportedly represent.

So what what WAS that question again?.... Oh I remember now! “Has intervention in Iraq failed in its objectives so badly that the threat to this country is actually greater than it was before it began”?.. Duh!…..

December 20, 2006 3:31 pm  
Blogger The Sentinel said...

This illegal war has served no discernible purpose for national interest and British troops are only allowed to be deployed in circumstances of imminent national threat or imminent threat to national interests.

If we did not benefit, and ultimately the Americans have not benefited who could possibly have benefited from destabilising a unified Iraq and destabilising the whole arab world?

Who would really fear a unified Iraq or a unified arab world?

If we discover who benefits, and invariably someone always will, we can identify the culprits for this enormous atrocity.

December 20, 2006 7:15 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rachel: "My God, I agree with the Conservative leader."

Shock horror!! Lefty liberal agrees with liberal lefty.

The only odd thing, is that you think Cameron is a conservative.

As for those who whine that the war in Iraq has led to a greater threat of attacks in the UK, another man bites dog story - fighting any war leads to a raised threat from your enemy.

By that token, the first bomb set off in London by the IRA would have led instantly to the establisment of a provisional Irish republican administration in Belfast and the overthrow of the legitimate Irish government in Dublin.

The issue is, should we caputulate and run away like a whipped dog? Or is it better to fight the enemy on their own ground.

December 20, 2006 10:10 pm  
Blogger Lucid Glow said...

I guess good bad ol' Dave should be commended for speaking the truth we all know.

December 21, 2006 12:40 am  
Anonymous Rohen said...

David Cameron is exceptionally right wing and lest ye not forget this I was told this by someone who knows him quite well...He is not repeat not a lefty liberal, far from it

Anon has been fooled by the sheepskin that David Cameron is wearing over his delightful wolfs pelt which is very stealthy and bears no relation to his public image.

May I draw anon to the proverb

Leopards do not change their spots!

December 21, 2006 10:46 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rohen: "David Cameron is exceptionally right wing and lest ye not forget this I was told this...."

Is it April the first already? Yes, hearsay is a sound foundation for such a conclusion. On the other hand, Cameron endorses Polly, obvious credentials for an 'exceptional' right winger. Football perhaps, politics never!

Rohan: "by someone who knows him quite well..."

A member of Camerons camp is hardly likely to be 'off message'.

Rohan: "May I draw anon to the proverb Leopards do not change their spots!"

Which is exactly my point. Just because Cameron is wealthy, doesn't mean he is a Tory, any more than it meant the 2nd Viscount Stansgate was Tory. In actual fact both Stansgate and Cameron are both demogogues.

December 21, 2006 12:03 pm  
Blogger kobwebby said...

Question: Can a pacifist philosophy realistically work in an aggressive world?
Answer: It must.

Well at least it must if the human race is to survive; perhaps the idea of a cooperative humanitarian utopia is rather fanciful when much of our society is structured toward acquisition.

It’s almost as if vast wealth temporarily fills some sort of void, it makes us feel successful in some way.

Some of the poorest people on earth are the happiest, they laugh at us, they feel sorry for us and our false values, but they share what little they have and are rich beyond wealth, they are also the ones we take advantage of the most, we feel sorry for them because they don’t have television as if that were the height of civilised mind, they are peasants, they make our cheap designer clothes, our cheap technological gadgets… their cheap labour, our greed, our need for greater social standing, as if anybody really cares
….

War is an act of aggression; terrorism is an act of aggression; terrorism cannot be defeated by war, perhaps one day we will question those on whose behalf we act.

We like war, it turns us into heroes, we defeat the infidel, impose our ideology, our religion, it makes us feel proud and brave…and dead.

Love and compassion of course gives us nothing in return.

December 21, 2006 1:10 pm  
Anonymous Katherine said...

Please, anonymous who says "fighting any war leads to a raised threat from your enemy" and then likens the war with Iraq to the Belfast troubles:

what exactly did Iraq do to us first?

Because if you are about to talk about The War on Terror, I think you'll find that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had diddly squat to do with any of it.

December 21, 2006 4:21 pm  
Blogger kobwebby said...

Love em or hate em, here is a literal Italian/English translation about the Blairs...


Crews of mass destruction, WTF?!?

Premier English Tony Blair closes in these days the electoral campaign in sight of the political elections of May. Interviewed from the popular weekly magazine "Sun" series of simpati to us have been produced in one siparietti with the aid compiaciuto of the moglie Cherie. Before the moglie that invites it to make a photography to torso knot in order to show "how much is in shape" and pudico he who refuses but he clears that "like minimum 5 times a night" with Cherie to confirm that "the dimensions count" and that although the 52 years the premier "ce ago always". Then still Cherie that affected tells of the insufficient memory of Tony for festivities and anniversary: "it is always remembered to the last minute and then it takes a A4 sheet, the fold in two and us it writes ` Tony loves Cherie and under it designs pupazzetti, river basins and cuoricini". Vocifera that the laburista leader, for still appeals to more to the constituents and for giving continuity to its idea of "third via" between Socialism and conservatorium, is in procinto of: * To send to all the constituents a righello for easier I compare collective of the mutual measures. * To acquire a soccer team in which using always a module with at least two tips, taking possession of a private television which to transmit daily to useful forecasts of the time for the sudditi indecisi between umbrella and hat and debit start to a new political plan from the evocativo name of "Go Kingdom". * To space out its future engagements of government to compatible timetables with its it must hold one equal post-electoral medium-sex to the impegnativa pre-electoral medium-sex. * To repent public in front of the archbishop of "mentito" Canterbury for having on the crews of mass destruction and in order it are scordato of santificare the festivities commant of Born them.

The mind DOES boggle.


Anyway! we know about "the other cheek of the same arse" and his, shall we just say; "connections" but what about the new kid on the block "Dave call me whatever"?

I should think with a little bit if judicious investigation it should ALL link-in quite nicely :)



The real global policy makers

Here too

Taken as a whole and looking at all the linkage and sizing up present and past policies with the relevant influences in our own government, then things don't look that great.

What does look great though is that we can see it... Wonderful....

After all, to keep the masses quiet all you need to do, is to keep em dumb.

There was a time when reportage went pretty-much unquestioned; we believed what we read, what we saw, what we heard, "what we were told"!!! Not any more though.. eh!

Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau have a lot to answer for..

December 22, 2006 4:51 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting to remember the Brighton Bombing....

Maggie climbed out of the rubble, and personally vetoed any talk of detention without trial a.k.a internment.

But, I forgot, she was an Evil etc etc... that Blair has a nice smile etc.

The Anon

December 22, 2006 8:26 pm  
Blogger PbPhil said...

Of course the war raised the risk of terror attacks. George Bush needed to fine an "ass" to kick. He couldn't find Osama so he turned left and went for an obvious choice instead and dragged our hapless and gullible government leaders into the mess that has been created.

Western activity has wrecked havoc in Iraq and will have a longterm effect. I feel sorry for the servicemen and women serving out there doing a job that ultimately we shouldn;t have taken on. Jeremy Vine had a radio program today for the forces serving in the field and I felt sad for all the families separated at this time of year.

Democracy failed in this instance, I believe close to the majority of British people would have said at the start of the this campaign that Britain should not enter this war.

Unfortunately an awful lot of people vote blue or red with their heart or with family tradition as opposed to with their heads and with a view as to what might actually be best for their country.

I believe that todays political parties are ineffective and largely untrustable...hence public apathy for democracy. 2 decades of spin and lies whipping along the modern media highway has very effectively damaged modern democracy.

December 22, 2006 10:53 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home