[vmarks]

Yesterday Blair came down unequivocally on terrorism and those who commit it.

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7999.asp

"I may offend people when I say this, but Sept. 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? A lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again,"

"It's time we stopped saying: 'OK we abhor their methods, but we kind of see something in their ideas, or maybe they've got a sliver of excuse or justification.' They've got no justification for it. Neither have they any justification for killing people in Israel either,"

"Let's just get that out of the way right now. There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, Iraq, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere. In the United States of America, there is no justification for it, period"

"and we will start to beat this when we stand up and confront the ideology of this evil. Not just the methods but the ideas. When we actually have people going into the communities here in this country and elsewhere and saying I am sorry, we are not having any of this nonsense about it is to do with what the British are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, or support for Israel, or support for America, or any of the rest of it. It is nonsense, and we have got to confront it as that. And when we confront it as that, then we will start to beat it."


I think that's some of the most direct speech on the issue I've heard from Mr. Blair.
The question is, if he's right (and I think that he is) will it make a dent? He supposes people are sleeping. Have the London attempts woken them up?

[Doofy]

This is nothing more than damage limitation because, back in 2002, his wife said the following in a criticism of Israel:

"As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress"

There's been various other similar comments made by her over the last couple of years. Over the last couple of weeks since the bombings (and hard in the last few days) the papers and public (the government-monitored political forums particularly) have been gunning for them big style over this.

You have to understand that both the Blairs are completely unprincipled and will say anything to gain/maintain a few votes, popularity points or extra pennies. Nothing at all will happen.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

on his kicking the excuse mongering to the curb. Let’s hope he walks the walk as well as talks the talk.

[nath]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Yesterday Blair came down unequivocally on terrorism and those who commit it.

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7999.asp


I think that's some of the most direct speech on the issue I've heard from Mr. Blair.

What you might have missed from reading the official Downing Street press release was that his whole impassioned spiel was in response to journalists at the press conference bringing up carefully worded criticism from his wife yesterday, regarding the government's response to the bombings.

Cherie Blair:

It is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation".

What the case makes clear is that the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law

The QC, addressing an audience of 1,000 lawyers, civil servants and diplomats in Malaysia, said judges made rulings in a way that taught citizens and government about the "ethical responsibilities" of participating in a true democracy committed to "universal human rights standards".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4721599.stm

Given those comments, it's hardly surprising that Blair had to do his hard man act.

[eklipse]

Pretty hollow sounding rhetoric from a guy complicit in the slaughter of thousands.

[loki74]

And of course, we have to go and *speculate* (and by speculate I mean draw things out of the air because of a personal grudge against a political ideology) as to ulterior motives. Ever consider he actually means what he says?

I've been pretty impressed with Mr. Blair. Unlike many European leaders, he seems to be a level-headed objective person.

And he is right. ENOUGH making mindless excuses for terrorists. I mean, we try to find what might be right with terrorists, and try to find and nitpick every little flaw in our leaders. Kind of backwards? I think so. Like I said, the man is right. Enough excuses. The terrorists need to be either brought in or killed. Simple as that.

[nath]

Originally Posted by loki74

Ever consider he actually means what he says?

Clearly you have never seen his Diana speech.

Blair is a great performer, there's no doubt about that. Unfortunately there's really not much more to him than that.

Originally Posted by loki74

I've been pretty impressed with Mr. Blair.

Many Americans are; if I remember correctly he's actually been consistently more popular in the US than Bush. But then you guys are suckers for a bit of foppish depreciating wit, as the otherwise inexplicable popularity of Hugh Grant demonstrates.

Originally Posted by loki74

And he is right. ENOUGH making mindless excuses for terrorists.

You are essentially taking the path that Blair wants people to take from his rhetoric. Nobody made any excuses for terrorists. You can read the questions, they're all there at the links provided in the OP. Blair was asked repeatedly whether recent UK foreign policy has made suicide attacks more or less likely. It's a question he repeatedly refuses to address in a straightforward manner. And who can blame him, knowing, as he does, where answering such a question honestly might lead?

[Troll]

What makes a suicide bomber different from an ordinary bomber? Or is Blair suggesting armed struggles are never justified?

[nath]

Originally Posted by Troll

What makes a suicide bomber different from an ordinary bomber? Or is Blair suggesting armed struggles are never justified?

I'm sure he's not saying that. Otherwise I'm sure he would have had more difficulty allowing people actively engaged with terrorist groups to take part in power-sharing in Northern Ireland.

[yakkiebah]

I think Europe is slowly waking up. But don't think Blair is the only one, France has woken up for quite a while. More so then what both pro- and anti-France people here might think. I think i've posted this before but it didn't get any response:

France sent its interrogators to Guantánamo Bay to gather evidence that could be used in French court against the French detainees the United States was holding there. France is the only one of six European nations that continues to imprison detainees returned to it from the U.S. military facility in Cuba.

From the Seattle Times

Or just google France and terrorism.

Blair has been the most vocal about his stance though. But it is a message that most European leaders agree with.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by loki74

Ever consider he actually means what he says?

Yes. Then we stopped doing that around six years ago when we discovered that everything he says is a lie.

Originally Posted by loki74

I've been pretty impressed with Mr. Blair. Unlike many European leaders, he seems to be a level-headed objective person.

Consider this...
I'm pro-Rebuplican, pro-war. Nath is (I assume) pro-Democrat, anti-war. We both say Blair is full of poop. Could it be possible that there's some truth in what we say?

Now, here's the facts:
Blair is an ex-marxist. He's way to the left of Kerry. He might not look it from the other side of the pond but almost anyone in Britain who doesn't work for him will tell you that he's unprincipled, opportunistic scum.

He didn't support W in the war because he felt it was the right thing to do - he supported W in the war because he thought it'd make him look like a great statesman and he likes travelling. This is what drives Blair - keeping his job and attempting to go down in history as one of the greats whilst seeing the World on taxpayers' dollar - nothing else.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Nath is (I assume) pro-Democrat, anti-war. We both say Blair is full of poop. Could it be possible that there's some truth in what we say?

I'm neither pro-Democrat nor anti-war as a rule. However I did find Kerry a more credible candidate than the alternative, and I do think the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary at the point it was entered into.

But you're right, Blair is full of poop.

[yakkiebah]

Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.

France ejects 12 Islamic 'preachers of hate'

Does this preemptive cracking down on extremist sound familiar? Didn't France oppose this line of thinking?

Well, i guess they no longer do.