Blair wants battle of ideas with terrorists

In Robert's words, from the thread below, "half a ton of fertilizer".

Sir Kenneth Clarke in the boxing ring. He hasn't got a clue.

Oh ffffffffudge! What a blunder. When will these liberal idiots get there heads out of the sand?When we have honour killings,(man brings his wifes head to police station in Germany) wife beatings, multiple wives, arranged marriages ect. in our Western society, something's just not right.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is a big bully. It's not right.
This is an unfair fight. Muslims have no ideals outside of jihad and homicide bombings.

I'm stunned, though, that Tony was able to say these words, given his past urge to treat Islam with PC kid gloves. Prince Charles can spout off about religious "tolerance" all he wants, but Tony has put his finger squarely on who is responsible for this problem. Bravo, Tony:

"it is not Christians or Jews or Hindus who are objecting today to religious tolerance, openness to others, democracy, or to liberty and human rights administered by secular courts. It is only Muslims who have mounted a violent movement, found today around the globe, to combat these ideas."

Oh ffffffffudge! When will these liberal nut cases get there heads out of the sand? when we have cases of honour killings,(man brings head of wife to police station in Germany) arranged marriages, multiple wives, wife beating ect. in our Western socioty, something's just not right.

Guiltfree,

I think you may have misread the posting. It was not Tony Blair who said the words you placed in quotes. It was Robert. Unless, of course, I'm the one misreading the posting.

Guiltfree, I think you took the post out of context.

Oh, man, I need some coffee. Sorry bout that. As you were...

I have nothing at all in common with anyone who believes in Sharia law or thinks that Mohammed is the perfect man. That is perhaps the most stupidly insulting thing I have yet heard from Tony Blair and shows yet again that the man is well past his sell by date..., problem is his sucessor is even worse...

Tony Blair has obviously let the Tube bombing last July 7th slip his failing mind. These statements are multicultural in nature, and only lend the Islamic fanatics more fuel to run on and spread their poison among the Brits, and whoever associates with the Brits.

What a shame.

Winston Churchill once said: If you don't look a fact straight in the eye, it will eventually come to stab you in the back.

Blair still won't look at the facts in the eye. Intolerance and violence, murderous terror, and deceit, are central texts in the Quran, and were the practice and preaching of Muhammad himself.

Never in history has the West been called upon to practice Realpolitik as it is today and what do we get? The intellectual equivalent of that old Coke song "I wanna teach the world to sing..."

Elcordobes, what's your source for that quote you attributed to Churchill?

"Winston Churchill once said: If you don't look a fact straight in the eye, it will eventually come to stab you in the back."

And it did - on July 7th 2005

And despite Blair's words, he has yet to expell a single Imam, or shut down a single Mosque.

It will take many more bombings and many more deaths before the likes of Blair finally wake up.

Has Tony Blair been reading Mark Steyn, too?

Blair: "The only way to win is to recognize this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas in which it operates as linked and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists," the speech will say.

Steyn: When you're up against a globalized ideology, you need to globalize your own ...

It won't work.

But the human components of a modern European state have something to distinguish them besides normal residence within a certain area of territory. They enjoy in common what may be called a certain sentiment of solidarity. Now, the sentiment of solidarity in virtue of which the members of a modern European state compose a specific collectivity of human beings is much easier to detect than to define. And, as we shall see, one of the great enterprises of modern European political thought has been concerned with attempts to understand and to interpret it: an enterprise which may remind us of Aristotle’s effort to discern the nature of a polis and to distinguish it from other human collectivities.

We must consider, later, what has been thought about the sentiment of solidarity enjoyed by the members of a modern European state, but three things may be said about it: First, it is based neither upon a belief in common blood, nor upon a common language, nor upon common religious beliefs, although any of these may be present and may contribute to it. It is less definite and less powerful than the sentiment of solidarity characteristic of a tribe and it does not entail the same degree of homogeneity in those who share it. Secondly, it is a unique kind of sentiment of solidarity; it is one of the characteristics which most distinguish these political associations from all others; and, being a product of circumstance, each modern European state has achieved it in an idiom of its own.

From: Michael Oakeshott: The Character of a Modern European State

http://www.imprint.co.uk/idealists/HPT_23.pdf

And here's another philosopher making a similar point:

[Minogue] is right to suggest that the national idea has been used to conscript people to nationhood: to impose a social unity by political means. In this respect, however, the full liberal theory of the state makes a comparable error. It too believes that there is, or ought to be, no source of political unity other than the political process itself: it differs in claiming that unity cannot be imposed, and that, in the right conditions, it emerges from, and expresses, an act of common consent. Until sustained by a national idea, however, the liberal state is, I believe, a solvent of unity and therefore contains the seeds of its own destruction. ("In defence of the nation" from The Philosopher on Dover Beach.)

The "Modern European State" (and the same goes for the US) can't be reduced to its political arrangements: it is underpinned and sustained by loyalty. Unity should not, and probably cannot, be imposed by political means. However, neither should politicans do anything to undermine that loyalty - but they frequently have. European politicians should certainly not have allowed large numbers of people whose primary loyalty is confessional (and which confessional loyalty is understood as being in opposition to and overriding all other potential loyalties) to settle in their countries. One has to hope now that such arrivals will, nevertheless, develop loyalties to the nation. But what a gamble!

You may talk about the "values and ideas" of the political system until you are blue in the face. But if large sections of the population have no loyalty to the nation, which is the only form in which that political system has real existence, you'll talk in vain.

From this post yesterday concerning under-reporting of Muslim violence in Europe:

Tony Blankley wrote a Washington Times column, March 8, on the underreporting of Muslim violence. He said British politicians tell him there is increasing radical Muslim street violence, explicitly motivated by radical Islam, but not reported or characterized as such. Blankley said rioting Moroccan youths in Antwerp went on a rampage, beating up reporters and destroying cars, but police were instructed not to arrest or stop them. A database search shows little reporting on Antwerp riots.

Suppressing news, whether out of multicultural deference or fear, is a perilous business. We can't know how to react to upheavals if we aren't told about them.

PM Blair, how doth thou answer?

Tony who?

When the Nazis too power in Berlin the speaker of the Teichstag asked that Chancellor Hitler continue the German tradition of democracy and respect the rule of law in the republic.

Blair's preaching about equality to the Islamists will fall on equally deaf ears.

Blair and others have information under their noses, and refuse to absorb it:

Winston Churchill:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Not too hard to grasp

When the Nazis too[k] power in Berlin the speaker of the Teichstag asked that Chancellor Hitler continue the German tradition of democracy and respect the rule of law in the republic.

Blair's preaching about equality to the Islamists will fall on equally deaf ears.

Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at March 21, 2006 02:03 PM

DDN29:

The Islamists believe in equality: the kind that finds them more equal than others.

The Reuters story, published in advance of the Blair speech, offered a PC version of the Prime Minister’s comments. According to the Guardian, Blair actually called for modernization within Islam itself and an activist approach in support of western principles:

"...the prime minister said there was now a worldwide "battle about modernity", some of which "can only be conducted and won within Islam itself." He added that blaming the US or hoping the global terror movement "would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions, is ... profoundly, fundamentally wrong."

Blair also is now calling a spade a spade, regardless of any "offense" Muslims may claim:

He also disclosed that, in countering domestic terrorism, British ministers have been advised against using the term "Islamist extremist" but that it was necessary to give offence in order to "face up to the strain of extremism". Mr. Blair went on: "It will give offence. It is true. It will."

When incremental progress is displayed by our leaders in defining what it is we fight, we can only anticipate the largely dishonest press will spin the message to fit an appeasement agenda. Blair's speech wasn’t perfect, but it offered more realism than foolishness.

I think based on what Jumpintimmy wrote that Blair is starting to fight back. We still need a real leader somewhere to start a massive crackdown on islam, I doubt it will start in England or here in the USA. I still have hope for the Danes.

I have always hated Tony Blair. A lot of people in America were fooled into believing he was a good person because he sided with Bush on the war on terror. He had no choice Britain always sides with the US. He was an accidental antijihadist for a while. Now he is showing his true colours. This is the snake that favoured bombing Yugoslavia and still supports independance for Kosovo. Sadly Bush is turning into another Blair. They are both bumbs.

One of the major problems in the battle of ideas about the future of civilization is to know who the "enemy" is.
Just like an iceberg, Islamists (the Greens) are only the visible tip, the Browns and Reds are just as deadly but are given a free pass.

He also disclosed that, in countering domestic terrorism, British ministers have been advised against using the term "Islamist extremist"

Why? Because you are scared of offending an ethnic group who's religion regularily breeds homicidal fanatics? That's understandable. Tony, you must be soooooo scared, poor dear.

You can expect European leaders to out-Bush Bush on trying to finesse the point that Islam and actual tolerance (not dhimmitude) is inherently contradictory. Their problem is not merely lack of political will in the face of terrorist bombs, but complete befuddlement over their own ticking demographic time-bomb.

Blair's resolve has been among the most unflinching in Europe, though he has particularly narrow rhetorical room to maneuver in. He must make the case for winning at all costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the case that largely has to be made around the world, because most people don't get it. But don't be surprised to see it mixed in with a bunch of talk about tolerance and even, yes, global warming in order to get past the liberal censors in the mainstream media.

D. Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com

guiltfree -

Ok, you are forgiven. Easy does it on that coffee.

Blair doesn't need to praise or curse Islam.

He just doesn't need to add it where it does not belong.

He doesn't need to lie in its favor.

Just leave it out of the speeches in praise of things Islam does not believe in.

As Nietzsche warned: "You distort a thing by interpreting it too profoundly."

Islam is not as profound as Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism or Bahaism. Or even Wicca.

Do not distort it by including it among faiths it does not deserve to be considered equal to.

Let it speak for itself. Quote the Koran.

Stop the deception of non-existent Islam.

If "Stop the deception of non-existent Islam." seems a cryptic or terse, what I meant is:

Blair and his cronies should not set up a fantasy faith and pretend it is Islam. Then use it for political/propaganda purposes.

This is active betrayal. Intentional disinformation.

Do not praise Islam for what it isn't.

Either be honest, or be quiet.

Since no politco can ever be the latter, they need to either read to Koran or stop exposing the world to their dangerous ignorance of it.

Kick the Fabian Socialist Blair out. Their types are the reason for the mess we're in in the first place.
Supremicist slime. Read the fricken history.

Tony Blair is a nutter, exuding a barely-concealed nervous tension bordering paranoia. The Tories sent him up brilliantly with a poster campaign which cut'n'pasted his Cheshire Cat grin under a pair of upside-down eyes, set on a black background. Nightmarish, but quintessetial Blair. He's getting warmer, but only by default as his protestations of "overwhelming majorities" are pulled asunder by the very 5th columnists he champions. He still insist 7/7 has no more to do with Islam than Protestant violence in NI has to do with the Bible - yet he also alluded to having read the Qur'an - how can this be? He must be lying on some count - either he hasn't read the Qur'an or he knows the truth but chooses instead to lie. He must realise that Jesus never commanded Loyalist Paras to perform gangland hits on Catholic Nationalists, but Mohummad repeatedly exhorts his banditos to kill and torture non-Moslems. It's not a subtle distinction.

If this speech was meant to inform, or even reassure us that he knows the coo, I think many Britons are way ahead of him. We're looking for a leader, but this guy's still playing catch-up. Okay, GOOD that he seems willing to "cause offence", GOOD that he makes it clear we're all in the same boat, from Israel to Russia to Spain, NY & London, he at least acknowledges it's all the same Jihad.

But then come the lies. Islam is peaceful, there's nothing in the Qur'an that sanctions the terrorist's agenda. The Islamic model was the pinnacle of Human civilisation for over a millenia, the world's most accomplished scientists, most tolerant societies, when we in the West were living in the treetops.

Fair enough, small steps. But he'll eventually have to recant these statements, when his overwhelming majority of peaceful beatniks leave them high & dry. He also mentioned Mohummad Siddique Khan's video testimony, wherein he railed against supposed opression in Afghanistan, Iraq & Palestine. This, Blair assured us, is the ideological paradigm we have to redress. Well, yes, it would be a start. But this will require detailed examination of Islamic affairs, how and why they are administered, what it is about Islam that brings it into conflict in the first place. This will most definitely cause offence - is Blair a strong enough character to prosecute such truths? He was unfortunately reticent about a later portion of Kahn's diatribe, where he explicitly condemns "moderate Moslems", stressing that Islam hadn't got this far by being "tolerant" or "peaceful" - but by warfare, violence & agression. Can Blair address these Khomeiniist TRUTHS about the history of Islamic expansionism and the pivotol role of Jihadist doctrines? Where will this leave his popularity ratings with those overwhelmingly praiseworthy protagonists of the Abrahamic covenant?

This was the first of three speeches. The next will be in Australia, the third in the US. I bet Mr Howard could teach our Tony a thing or two. Here's hoping.

Once again, Robert communicates these excellent distinctions that are not being made leaders in the "West."

And we are still hearing the PC mantra of "no clash of civilizations" from the speech writers here and in Britain. I guess in the age of "globalization" this might have grain of truth to it, but I really don't see it at the ideological level.

All the best,
Mac

Battling ideas is all well and good if that battle is targetted and applied. What has Blair said about putting pressure on Afghanistan with regards to the apostacy and blasphemy issues (still harsh penalties in place for both). What has he said or done toward abolishing penalties for blasphemy and apostacy? What about human rights in Iraq? What has Blair said about Sistani's call for the execution of homosexuals? What has Blair said, and what does he propose be done, about the anti-western (and generally anti-non-Muslim) media in Islamic countries? What about the schools which teach the Koran and churn out hate-mongers? A real battle of ideas requires that concrete steps be put in place in each of these areas and more, not just the usual platitudes about fighting "terror."

Note: Abolishing those apostacy and blasphemy laws seems to me to be a key aspect in the battle of ideas. As long as harsh penalties remain in place for criticizing Islam or leaving Islam, we are fighting with one hand behind our back and dissidents can scarcely fight at all.

cant blame Blair he is after all a socialist, believe in man causing global warming,, he squirms from the pc crowd.. being cowtied to the left. he has little backbone.. is there a good conservative Winton Churhill like person in G.B.now??