Tony Blair speaks of Terrorism

JaJae · 09-27-2006, 06:43 PM

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: “This terrorism isn’t our fault”

And of course, the new anxiety is the global struggle against terrorism without mercy or limit.

This is a struggle that will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible.

This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it.

It's not the consequence of foreign policy.

It's an attack on our way of life.

It's global.

It has an ideology.

It killed nearly 3,000 people including over 60 British on the streets of New York before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was even thought of.

It has been decades growing.

Its victims are in Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Turkey.

Over 30 nations in the world.

It preys on every conflict.

It exploits every grievance.

And its victims are mainly Muslim.

This is not our war against Islam.

This is a war fought by extremists who pervert the true faith of Islam. And all of us, Western and Arab, Christian or Muslim, who put the value of tolerance, respect and peaceful co-existence above those of sectarian hatred, should join together to defeat them.

It is not British soldiers who are sending car bombs into Baghdad or Kabul to slaughter the innocent.

They are there along with troops of 30 other nations with, in each case, a full UN mandate at the specific request of the first ever democratically elected Governments of those countries in order to protect them against the very ideology also seeking the deaths of British people in planes across the Atlantic.

If we retreat now, hand Iraq over to Al Qaida and sectarian death squads and Afghanistan back to Al Qaida and the Taleban, we won't be safer; we will be committing a craven act of surrender that will put our future security in the deepest peril.

Of course it's tough.

Not a day goes by or an hour in the day when I don't reflect on our troops with admiration and thanks - the finest, the best, the bravest, any nation could hope for.

They are not fighting in vain. But for this nation's future.

But this is not a conventional war. It can't be won by force alone.

It's not a clash of civilisations.

It's about civilisation, about the ideas that shape it.

From 9/11 until now I have said again and again. If we want our values to be the ones that govern global change, we have to show that they are fair, just and delivered with an even hand.

From now until I leave office I will dedicate myself, with the same commitment I have given to Northern Ireland , to advancing peace between Israel and Palestine. I may not succeed. But I will try because peace in the Middle East is a defeat for terrorism.

We must never again let Lebanon become the battleground for a conflict that neither Israeli or Lebanese people wanted though it was they who paid the price for it.

Peace in Lebanon is a defeat for terrorism.

Action in Africa is a defeat for terrorism.

What is happening now in the Sudan cannot stand. If this were in the continent of Europe we would act.

Showing an African life is worth as much as a Western one - that would help defeat terrorism too.

Yes it's hard sometimes to be America's strongest ally.

Yes, Europe can be a political headache for a proud sovereign nation like Britain.

But believe me there are no half-hearted allies of America today and no semi-detached partners in Europe.

And the truth is that nothing we strive for, from the world trade talks to global warming, to terrorism and Palestine can be solved without America, or without Europe.

At the moment I know people only see the price of these alliances.

Give them up and the cost in terms of power, weight and influence for Britain would be infinitely greater.

Distance this country and you may find it's a long way back.

So all these changes of a magnitude we never dreamt of, sweeping the world, are calling for answers of equal magnitude and vision.

All require leadership. And here is something else I've learnt. The danger for us today is not reversion to the politics of the 1980s. It is retreat to the sidelines.

To the comfort zone. It is unconsciously to lose the psychology of a governing Party.

As I said in 1994, courage is our friend. Caution, our enemy.

A governing Party has confidence, self-belief. It sees the tough decision and thinks it should be taking it.

Reaches for responsibility first.

Serves by leading.

The most common phrase uttered to me - and not at rallies or public events but in meetings of chance, quietly, is not "I hate you" or "I like you" but "I would not have your job for all the world".

The British people will, sometimes, forgive a wrong decision.

They won't forgive not deciding.

They know the choices are hard.

They know there isn't some fantasy Government where nothing difficult ever happens. They've got the Lib Dems for that.

Government isn't about protests or placards, shouting the odds or stealing the scene. It's about the hard graft of achievement.

There are no third-term popular Governments. Don't ignore the polls but don't be paralysed by them either.

10 years on, our advantage is time, our disadvantage time.

Time gives us experience. Our capacity to lead is greater.

Time gives the people fatigue; their willingness to be led, is less.

But they will lose faith in us only if first we lose faith in ourselves.

Polls now are as relevant as last year's weather forecast for tomorrow's weather. It's three years until an election.

The first rule of politics: there are no rules. You make your own luck.

There's no rule that says the Tories have got to come back.

David Cameron's Tories? My advice: get after them.

His foreign policy. Pander to anti-Americanism by stepping back from America . Pander to the Eurosceptics through isolation in Europe. Sacrificing British influence for Party expediency is not a policy worthy of a Prime Minister.

His immigration policy. Says he'll sort out illegal immigration, but opposes Identity Cards, the one thing essential to do it.

His energy policy. Nuclear power "only as a last resort". It's not a multiple choice quiz question, Mr Cameron. We need to decide now otherwise in 10 years time we will be importing expensive fossil fuels and Britain's economy will suffer.

He wants tax cuts and more spending, with the same money.

He wants a Bill of Rights for Britain drafted by a Committee of Lawyers. Have you ever tried drafting anything with a Committee of Lawyers?

And his policy for the old lady terrorised by the young thug is that she should put her arm round him and give him a nice, big hug.

Built to last? They haven't even laid the foundation stone. If we can't take this lot apart in the next few years we shouldn't be in the business of politics at all.

The Tories haven't thought it through. They think it's all about image. It's true we changed our image. We created a professional organisation.

But if I'd stood in 1997 on the policies of 1987 I would have lost. Period.

And it's the same now. Enough talk of hung Parliaments.

The next election won't be about image unless we let it be.

It'll be about who has the strength, judgement, weight and ideas for Britain's future in an uncertain world.

And if we show belief in ourselves, the British people will feel that belief and be given confidence.

Something else I've learnt.

It's about a Party's character.

I'll give you two examples.

Dennis Skinner. Watching from his sick bed. Get well soon.

Never agreed with a policy I've had.

Never once stopped him knowing the difference between a Labour Government and a Tory one.

People like Janet Anderson, George Howarth, Mike Hall.

Good Ministers, but I asked them to make way. They did. Without a word of bitterness.

They never forgot their principles when in office; and they never discovered them when they left office.

This is the Party I am proud to lead.

From the day I was elected until the day I leave, they will always try to separate us.

"He's not Labour." "He's a closet Tory."

In the 1980s some things done were necessary for the country. That's the truth.

Saying it doesn't make you a Tory.

I'm a progressive.

The true believer believes in social justice, in solidarity, in help for those not able to help themselves.

They know the race can't just be to the swift and survival for the strong.

But they also know that these values, gentle and compassionate as they are, have to be applied in a harsh, uncompromising world and what makes the difference is not belief alone, but the raw courage to make it happen.

They say I hate the Party, and its traditions.

I don't.

I love this Party.

There's only one tradition I hated:

losing.

I hated the 1980s not just for our irrelevance but for our revelling in irrelevance.

And I don't want to win for winning's sake but for the sake of the millions here that depend on us to win, and throughout the world.

Every day this Government has been in power, every day in Africa, children have lived who otherwise would have died because this country led the way in cancelling debt and global poverty.

That's why winning matters.

So keep on winning.

Do it with optimism.

With hope in your hearts.

Politics is not a chore.

It's the great adventure of progress.

I don't want to be the Labour Leader who won 3 successive elections.

I want to be the first Labour Leader to win 3 successive elections.

So: it's up to you.

You take my advice. You don't take it. Your choice.

Whatever you do, I'm always with you. Head and heart.

You've given me all I have ever achieved, and all that we've achieved, together, for the country.

Next year I won't be making this speech.

But, in the years to come, wherever I am, whatever I do. I'm with you. Wishing you well. Wanting you to win.

You're the future now. Make the most of it.

Obviously American liberals are going to take offense to what he says since it contradicts their entire thought process on the war on terror. However, in the rest of the world "Blair's speech scores top marks in press"
Blair's speech scores top marks in press | Herald Sun

BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair's last speech as Labour leader at the party's annual conference was given a resounding thumbs-up in the British press on Wednesday, with one calling it his best ever.

My question here is what do American liberals think of his speech? The British thinks he did a great job. Americans I'm willing to bet are going to attack him. Our Democratic party and liberal pundits have painted a very different picture on terrorism and Islamic extremists than the rest of the world sees.

Any users viewing this from outside links, I encourage you to sign up and share your opinion here with us.

avsp · 09-27-2006, 07:32 PM

AFAICT most of the laudatory press comment was about the 'elquence' of the speech not a reaction to his stance on the WoT

It is good that he emphasises the need for long term commitment & the fact that it cant be won militarily, IMO

Not a day goes by or an hour in the day when I don't reflect on our troops with admiration and thanks - the finest, the best, the bravest, any nation could hope for.

He has, quite frankly, a fucking nerve to say this. The press here is awash with stories about poor equipment & co-ordination in UK forces in A'stan, ..., the reports are well sourced IMO.

At the moment I know people only see the price of these alliances.

Give them up and the cost in terms of power, weight and influence for Britain would be infinitely greater.

Distance this country and you may find it's a long way back.

This may well be true, ..., but it smacks still further of the 'politics of fear'

Lastly, it really is not my impression at all that the British people think he did 'a good job' in involving us in Iraq

Oh & we've got our own 'leaked report' on iraq causing terrorism
BBC NEWS | UK | Iraq war 'recruiting extremists'

KatKanPlay · 09-27-2006, 07:59 PM

It is a beautiful speech. Blair is a very eloquent speaker. It was a great speech, I have heard a few of those from my own president. Since the UK has a very long history of occupation, I have to disagree with his declaration that the UK is completely innocent. Its past occupation in the middle east and it arrogant imposition of its culture had to have bred hatred among the indigenous people. How anyone can say that the dominance of western civilization in that region for so long had nothing to do with the breeding of terrorism is IMO part of the problem.

I do have a question for you.... Where in the world did you get the idea that liberals are against the war on terror???

JaJae · 09-27-2006, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I do have a question for you.... Where in the world did you get the idea that liberals are against the war on terror???

Where did I say this?

kinggovernor · 09-27-2006, 08:58 PM

great fucking speech, he should come here and deliver it across the country

KatKanPlay · 09-27-2006, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: “This terrorism isn’t our fault”

Obviously American liberals are going to take offense to what he says since it contradicts their entire thought process on the war on terror. However, in the rest of the world "Blair's speech scores top marks in press"
Blair's speech scores top marks in press | Herald Sun

My question here is what do American liberals think of his speech? The British thinks he did a great job. Americans I'm willing to bet are going to attack him. Our Democratic party and liberal pundits have painted a very different picture on terrorism and Islamic extremists than the rest of the world sees.
.

I apologize, you didnt say it exactly, but the implication is there.

JaJae · 09-27-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I apologize, you didnt say it exactly, but the implication is there.

No the implication is that American liberals have a different view of terrorism than the rest of the world.

Liberals buy into the sympathy. Other countries publish humor parodies in their newspapers. Our newspapers attack them for doing such a thing.

There's a huge difference. I'm not saying liberals support terrorists or don't support the war on terror. I'm saying their mentality towards terrorists is different than the rest of the world.

If you watch the clip it opens with..

And of course, the new anxiety is the global struggle against terrorism without mercy or limit.

This is a struggle that will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible.

This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it.

It's not the consequence of foreign policy.

It's an attack on our way of life.

It's global.

It has an ideology.

This goes against the very core of the liberal pundits of our nation. After he said this everyone clapped. Yet you'll see here on our forum that the common liberal consensus is that we started it by spreading America and European values to the middle east and butting our noses where it didn't belong.

Blair basically said no, it's not the consequence of foreign policy.

He also says:

They are there along with troops of 30 other nations with, in each case, a full UN mandate at the specific request of the first ever democratically elected Governments of those countries in order to protect them against the very ideology also seeking the deaths of British people in planes across the Atlantic.

If we retreat now, hand Iraq over to Al Qaida and sectarian death squads and Afghanistan back to Al Qaida and the Taleban, we won't be safer; we will be committing a craven act of surrender that will put our future security in the deepest peril.

This is clearly not the typical American liberal's view on pulling out of Iraq.

My post had nothing to do with whether or not liberals supported the war on terror, it had everything to do with their beliefs about it and how different many of their views are.

This isn't some vast right wing nut saying this and some Christian wacko crowd clapping. This is the British gov't responding to this speech. Can you imagine if Bush gave this same speech and what his response would be? It certaintly wouldn't be the response given here:
Blair's speech scores top marks in press | Herald Sun

KatKanPlay · 09-27-2006, 10:48 PM

[quote=JaJae;39837]

No the implication is that American liberals have a different view of terrorism than the rest of the world.

I dont believe that, and can see no clear evidence of it...

Liberals buy into the sympathy.

Not sure what this means unless you are referring to this,,,,

common liberal consensus is that we started it by spreading America and European values to the middle east and butting our noses where it didn't belong.

I believe the extremists are extremists for no other reason than they can be, but because of the arrogant behavior of western civilization, these very extremists are better able to spread their brand of hate and thereby recruit and convert. Or do you think that our occupation and impositions on other cultures should be met with shear gratefulness that we rescued them from their vile and pagan existance?

Blair basically said no, it's not the consequence of foreign policy.

This is supposed to mean something coming from a son of the British Empire?

And here is where the other shoe falls........

This is clearly not the typical American liberal's view on pulling out of Iraq.

Because the typical American liberal's view is that we had no business going into Iraq in the first place. The typical American liberal's view is that the war on terror and the war on Iraq are two completely different wars. The typical American liberal's view is we want to fight the war on terror and the war on Iraq has most definately impeded and weakened our effort to do so. American liberals will no longer allow these two seperate wars to be co-mingled and confused as if they are one and the same. Most Brits have come to the very same conclusion.

This isn't some vast right wing nut saying this and some Christian wacko crowd clapping. This is the British gov't responding to this speech. Can you imagine if Bush gave this same speech and what his response would be? It certaintly wouldn't be the response given here:

[

Unfortunately our President is not as well spoken as Mr. Blair, but he does attempt to deliver the same message and yes the government here responds with the same resounding applause. The key word here is government, They have to, they are his party.

Tony Blair's approval ratings arent much better that Bush's. Just because Tony Blair can give a good speech, doesnt mean his part in the Iraq debacle is justified.

Is it only the liberals in this country that want justification for Iraq? Could it be that there are a few fair minded clear thinking conservatives that also want justification?

avsp · 09-28-2006, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

This isn't some vast right wing nut saying this and some Christian wacko crowd clapping. This is the British gov't responding to this speech. Can you imagine if Bush gave this same speech and what his response would be? It certaintly wouldn't be the response given here:
Blair's speech scores top marks in press | Herald Sun

it was at the party conference, ..., its his last & the succession battle is widely seen as damaging the party. Thus the conference has tried to portray an image of unity.

The press is having a last tearfull goodbye, ..., the general perception is that Iraq has been a total fuck up from start to finish

It is my impression that, limited though it is, there is a greater realisation here about the 'costs' of a premature pull-out than in the US, There is still a sizable 'pull out now' crowd though.

Pull-out dates are a fucking stupid idea

You also suggest that Blair made his remarks despite being a liberal. Firstly I dont think that he is especially liberal & secondly he made the remarks at least in part to counter the widespread view that WoT/Iraq was a huge mistake &/or executed very badly. He may be addressing the concerns of 'liberals' but he is percieved as doing so because of his 'damaged' position not because he is correct. (even though IMO he largely is)

6SpeedTA95 · 09-28-2006, 08:53 AM

[quote=KatKanPlay;39871]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I dont believe that, and can see no clear evidence of it...

Not sure what this means unless you are referring to this,,,,

I believe the extremists are extremists for no other reason than they can be, but because of the arrogant behavior of western civilization, these very extremists are better able to spread their brand of hate and thereby recruit and convert. Or do you think that our occupation and impositions on other cultures should be met with shear gratefulness that we rescued them from their vile and pagan existance?

This is supposed to mean something coming from a son of the British Empire?

And here is where the other shoe falls........

Because the typical American liberal's view is that we had no business going into Iraq in the first place. The typical American liberal's view is that the war on terror and the war on Iraq are two completely different wars. The typical American liberal's view is we want to fight the war on terror and the war on Iraq has most definately impeded and weakened our effort to do so. American liberals will no longer allow these two seperate wars to be co-mingled and confused as if they are one and the same. Most Brits have come to the very same conclusion.

[

Unfortunately our President is not as well spoken as Mr. Blair, but he does attempt to deliver the same message and yes the government here responds with the same resounding applause. The key word here is government, They have to, they are his party.

Tony Blair's approval ratings arent much better that Bush's. Just because Tony Blair can give a good speech, doesnt mean his part in the Iraq debacle is justified.

Is it only the liberals in this country that want justification for Iraq? Could it be that there are a few fair minded clear thinking conservatives that also want justification?

I dont think they have a different view from the rest of the world, but they are definately on the side that criticizes the US constantly.

I think he means sympathy for the terrorist...

Extremist will always have an excuse to hate and attempt to recruit people to come on board. They're killing people everday in Iraq vai car bombs IEDs etc.

The typical liberal says we have no business in Iraq, which I find hilarious because these same liberals called for using the military for a whole host of police actions until the war on terror started. These same liberals are now calling for us to take action in Darfur. Hundreds of thousands dead in Darfur and I think we have a good reason to go in...but these same liberals argue against hte war in Iraq despite the atrocities of the last regime. Why? Its pretty simple, because Bush went to Iraq not them.

The original justification for the war in Iraq (aka WMD's) was obviously wrong. But we acted on intelligence that we had at that time. It wasn't just us but a host of other countries pointing to the high probability that they did have WMD's. Intelligence was wrong. If liberals were consistent and not playing the party line shit they'd still be ok with us being in Iraq for the human aspect of the situation. But they're not, why? As I said earlier because its Bush's war not something they can take credit for. So they do everything they can to make us look bad on a world stage to talk about pulling out etc. How about get behind the president lets get another 50,000 troops over there, lets kick ass and take names and hand this shit over in a year.

KatKanPlay · 09-28-2006, 02:38 PM

I dont think they have a different view from the rest of the world, but they are definately on the side that criticizes the US constantly.

We criticize the way our current leadership is running the country, not the country itself. We hold this country as dear to our hearts as any conservative does.

Extremist will always have an excuse to hate and attempt to recruit people to come on board. They're killing people everday in Iraq vai car bombs IEDs etc.

Yes they are now, they werent before we invaded.

The typical liberal says we have no business in Iraq, which I find hilarious because these same liberals called for using the military for a whole host of police actions until the war on terror started. These same liberals are now calling for us to take action in Darfur. Hundreds of thousands dead in Darfur and I think we have a good reason to go in...but these same liberals argue against hte war in Iraq despite the atrocities of the last regime. Why? Its pretty simple, because Bush went to Iraq not them.

The atrocities going on in Darfur far out weight what was happening in Iraq. There is no diplomatic means to handle Darfur. The whole world had Saddam in a glass box, the need to invade had little or nothing to do with saving his people from him. This invasion was planned long before 9/11.

The original justification for the war in Iraq (aka WMD's) was obviously wrong.

And they knew it was wrong, but used that excuse anyway. Besides it wasnt even a valid excuse, as I said before, he was in a glass box, the UN had their thumb on him, and the rest of the world watching.

But we acted on intelligence that we had at that time. It wasn't just us but a host of other countries pointing to the high probability that they did have WMD's. Intelligence was wrong.

They had plenty of Intelligence that contadicted the intelligence they used but chose to ignore it as well as hide it from the American people. What host of other countries are you talking about?? They sent in a 1,000 troops here and a 1,000 troops there. The rest of of the free world did not become involved with this debacle because they knew and warned us that we were acting on BAD intelligence. But this administration refused to listen and did everything they could to ridicule those nations. Hmmm turns out they were right and we are the laughing stock of the world because of it. Dont blame the liberals for making us look bad on the world stage, we had nothing to do with it.

If liberals were consistent and not playing the party line shit they'd still be ok with us being in Iraq for the human aspect of the situation.

This is just Bullshit, if we were so worried about the human aspect, we would have gone into Darfur as the conditions there are far worse than Iraq, and they are not a sovergn nation. Besides no one had any issue and we all gave our complete support for Afghanistan. Afghanistan was completely justified for all Americans because it was a direct link to 9/11 and the war on terror. Bush had 100% of my support, left wingers right wingers, we were all united!

But they're not, why? As I said earlier because its Bush's war not something they can take credit for. So they do everything they can to make us look bad on a world stage to talk about pulling out etc.

Again, complete Bullshit!! As much as you would like to believe it, the war in Iraq has nothing to do Partisanship, it has to do with what is right and what is wrong and on every level the invasion of Iraq was wrong. I dont give a damn who the President is or what party he belongs to. I would have been against this war because I felt we needed to concentrate on the war on terror. What is really sad is how many people still believe Iraq is part of the war on terror.
Contrary to many of us that are left of the center, I do not think we can withdraw at this point. We broke it we have to fix it. We have created such a clusterfuck over there that we would be completely wrong to just leave. But I am all for holding those who created that clusterfuck accountable.

How about get behind the president lets get another 50,000 troops over there, lets kick ass and take names and hand this shit over in a year.

I will never get behind this President, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice,,,,NOTAFUCKINGCHANCEINHELL!!!!

motivez · 09-28-2006, 03:03 PM

Can someone define for me what our "way of life" is? Is it Baseball? Reality TV? Mega Churches? Malls?

Only we can get rid of our "way of life" by giving up the liberties that have allowed us to create whatever it is in the first place.

A terrorist attack may be the cause, and our way of life being gone may be an effect, but it's certainly not a direct one. Our reaction to that attack and the way our nation moves forward after that will have a much larger and longer lasting impact.

We have a choice of doing what we can to protect the country while realizing that we'll never end a tactic as long as people are willing to blow themselves up, and that we'll fully get rid of people who hate us.. and going about our lives.. or being so afraid that we're literally willing to stop being a free society because it's 'too dangerous'

We used to embrace "Give me Liberty or give me death", but now some want to change it to "Give me your Liberties or you might die"..

I prefer the former still and don't believe that 20 some odd people with boxcutters can destroy our nation, but I'm being proven wrong every day by the actions of our Government's majority party.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Can someone define for me what our "way of life" is? Is it Baseball? Reality TV? Mega Churches? Malls?

Our way of life is whatever we choose it to be and not a reaction to what radical extremists force upon us or how they make us live under threat of violance.

avsp · 09-28-2006, 03:35 PM

way of life = open or closed, ..., but there are degrees

in general societies based on 'magic books' are closed

of course the US own 'magic documents' are, largely, perculiar in this respect

but of course we all know this

nevertheless many politicans, (especially Blair IMO), tend to act to increase the closedness of society. currently such people frequently use the politics of fear

DosEquis · 09-28-2006, 03:52 PM

I have no idea where you get that liberals hate the war on terror. I fully support the war on terror and think we should do everything we can in afghanistan. Those people who attacked us on 9/11 should be found and brought to justice.

Unfortunately i dont think we are doing everything we can in the war on terror. I think we have to much of our resources tied up in some other area of the world.

motivez · 09-28-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Our way of life is whatever we choose it to be and not a reaction to what radical extremists force upon us or how they make us live under threat of violance.

Well unfortunately the President would like to see our former way of life and the freedoms and liberties that came with it removed.. and that is completely reactionary to radical extremists and their threat of violence.

You might want to dismiss the connection, but only we can &quo