Tony Blair
Summary: The war on terrorism is not just about security or military tactics. It is a battle of values, and one that can only be won by the triumph of tolerance and liberty. Afghanistan and Iraq have been the necessary starting points of this battle. Success there, however, must be coupled with a bolder, more consistent, and more thorough application of global values, with Washington leading the way.
Tony Blair is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
#1
Yep -long but roughly/generally accurate. Commie Secularists = Radical Islam > GOD? DEMANDS REGRESSIONISM + MODERNITY >is PRIMITIVITY. GOD = WARLORD/BANDIT-SLAVER/MAFIOSI WANTS YOU TO BE PERM POOR + CONTROLLED.
#2
Tony Blair is a jackass. A perfect example of an emasculated western appeaser. The entire first page of that article is complete bullshit. Islam leading the way in art, science, governance and the treatment of women?!?. Ha! that's a good one. Someone in the Old World better grow a set of balls and soon, this jerk off is fiddling while Rome burns.
#3
"To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance."
I couldn't read any further. I just couldn't.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/29/2006 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Jeebus, just reading the two clips above, I know I won't even click that linky. What a load of multi-culti, touchy-feely BS.
Posted by: BA ||
12/29/2006 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Disagree. If you eliminate two paragraphs, I think most here would find the article interesting. So why those two paragraphs? Either he only read the first couple of chapters and thinks he's read the Koran, or he knows better and is throwing a bone to any possible moderates.
In the late 1990s, the movement's strategy became clear. If it was merely fighting within Islam, it ran the risk that fellow Muslims -- being as decent and as fair-minded as anyone else -- would choose to reject its fanaticism. A battle about Islam was just Muslim versus Muslim. The extremists realized that they had to create a completely different battle: Muslims versus the West.
That is what the September 11 attacks did. I am still amazed at how many people say, in effect, that there is terrorism today because of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that 9/11 predated both. The West did not attack this movement. It was attacked.
THE NATURE OF THE STRUGGLE
For this ideology, we are the enemy. But "we" are not the West. "We" are as much Muslim as Christian, Jew, or Hindu. "We" are all those who believe in religious tolerance, in openness to others, in democracy, in liberty, and in human rights administered by secular courts.
This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash about civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace the modern world and those who reject its existence -- between optimism and hope, on the one hand, and pessimism and fear, on the other.
In any struggle, the first challenge is to accurately perceive the nature of what is being fought over, and here we have a long way to go. It is almost incredible to me that so much Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault.
For a start, the terror is truly global. It is directed not just at the United States and its allies but also at nations who could not conceivably be said to be partners of the West.
#6
"We" are all those who believe in religious tolerance, in openness to others, in democracy, in liberty, and in human rights administered by secular courts.
And the question is, how may muzzies fit into that category. I don't know. But I doubt many. The historic track record says few and contemporary evidence says few.
Tony, and no other responsible politician wants to admit this because the implications are too horrifying. That is why they await an even more horrifying attack on us that will remove the domestic constraints that prevent the implementation of the subsequent horrifying solution. So Tony gives the mythical moderate Muslim the opportunity and encouragement to reform before they are removed. A Vanity Fair.
#10
The real problem is that no one in GB is going to implement Blair's fine policies. They will continue to coddle the Islamists and allow the non-integration of the 'multicultural' 'moderates'.
#13
His attempt to be evenhanded is hamfisted. There are so many things to choke on in this.
"To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance."
"Progressive." If "progressive" only means charity for the helpless and hungry, then ok. But Tony, you're a modern fellow; outside of the context of Islam, how would you define "progressive"? Equal treatment for the sexes? Not there. Equal rights before the law? Not there. Freedom from enslavement? Not there. Freedom from rape? Not there. Freedom from physical abuse and inhumane punishments by one's (religion-based) government? Not there. Freedom to convert from one's religion (Islam)? Both there and not there-a schizphrenic's delight indeed.
I wonder if he realizes how his words insult Christians and Jews, as if Islam is the only thing that made them truly pious.
The Koran may be inclusive, but that is rather understating the matter: the Koran is pathologically controlling of anyone in its reach.
Superstition is rife in Islamic countries; gossip is the currency for it.
The Koran may have been "ahead of its time" regarding women, but "its time" is not the standard for OUR time. Leave that ditty to the history books and let's focus on today, Tony; Islam is by far the worst of any religion in the treatment of women.
Yes, there are degrees of rottenness in the faith and there are some decent, innocent people who are gullible or terrified enough to follow this death-cult faith. But Tony, for you to provide any cover for these clitoris-cutting, wife-beating, rape-victim-executing religionists is truly surprising. Shame on you.
by blogger "Captain Ed" Morissey (h/t Instapundit)
A little more than three years after Saddam Hussein meekly came out of his spider hole, the Iraqis have finally removed the last obstacle to his execution. Saddam attempted, with some success, to transform his trial into a political showpiece, using it to rail against the American occupation and to inspire the Ba'athist remnants to terrorist attacks. Despite having several members of the court assasinated or attacked, the tribunal convicted Saddam for crimes consistent with the evidence. And yet, this is not enough for the New York Times:
The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity. The public record is bulging with the lengthy litany of his vile and unforgivable atrocities: genocidal assaults against the Kurds; aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait; use of internationally banned weapons like nerve gas; systematic torture of countless thousands of political prisoners.
What really mattered was whether an Iraq freed from his death grip could hold him accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future. A carefully conducted, scrupulously fair trial could have helped undo some of the damage inflicted by his rule. It could have set a precedent for the rule of law in a country scarred by decades of arbitrary vindictiveness. It could have fostered a new national unity in an Iraq long manipulated through its religious and ethnic divisions.
It could have, but it didnt. After a flawed, politicized and divisive trial, Mr. Hussein was handed his sentence: death by hanging. This week, in a cursory 15-minute proceeding, an appeals court upheld that sentence and ordered that it be carried out posthaste. Most Iraqis are now so preoccupied with shielding their families from looming civil war that they seem to have little emotion left to spend on Mr. Hussein or, more important, on their own fading dreams of a new and better Iraq.
So let's get this straight. What is really important isn't the hundreds of thousands of people that Saddam had killed on his whim. It isn't lengthy public record of his "vile atrocities". It isn't the long string of living victims that had to bear witness under difficult circumstances to those who could not appear in court. What really matters, the Times insists, is that the process did not "nurture hope".
Well, the purpose of trials is not to nurture hope -- it's to determine the truth regarding guilt or innocence of the accused. In this, the tribunal succeeded, although as the Times notes, the issue was not in much doubt. The trial also succeeded in giving voice to many of Saddam's victims, something the Times must have missed in its zeal to find hope-nurturing elements in a genocide trial. The tribunal also established solid legal precedents for a fledgeling judiciary that has to establish itself mostly from scratch.
The reluctance of the Times to support Saddam's conviction is puzzling, given that they concede all available evidence paints him as one of the worst monsters in the past few decades. It seems to spring from an objection to his sentence rather than his conviction, as they end with a warning that Saddam's execution will not create a "new and better Iraq," but that's not the purpose of criminal sentencing, either. Sentences serve dual purposes: to protect society and to serve as a deterrent to others, neither of which has anything to do with creating a new and better anything.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/29/2006 13:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nuture Hope?
I am simply hopeful the last thing Saddam hears is "snapping rope"...
#2
I did a tour in Afghanistan. There were some curious habits that took place before the holy day, Friday. Things that just made you wonder about the locals and Islam.
The nickname the US Soldiers called it for the local custom was "man love Thursday". I think you get the idea.
Good article though.
Posted by: Army Life ||
12/29/2006 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ha ! Explains a lot of Islamo motivation. Islamo work week:
Friday: Day of worship & seething. Fomented by local deranged imam.
Saturday: Day of recovery/smoking water pipe filled with camel chips.
Sunday: Breed day. Breed the crop of cows/females to make sure they produce a minimum of 1 offspring per year during peak years.(Gotta overtake the infidels)
Monday: Day of self manipulation/flagellation
Tuesday: Goat day. Spend some quality time with the herd.
Wednesday: Camel Day. Especially reserved for Arab believers. If you posses camels instaed of goats, proceed to service them.
Thursday: Young Companion Day. Gather the youngsters for extended guidance and training.
Makes for a happy and fulfilling week for any Muhamheadan.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Tony Blair
