Hazel Bloody Blears
I am reeling from the dramatic revelation that Home Office minister Hazel Blears is the most dimwitted simpleton in the country.
Shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve said of the 7th July bombings:
"I have to say, I find the suicide bombing totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things... I'm sure that something like the Iraq war contributes to it, because after all the Iraq war is about the intervention of Western countries in a state that is seen as being essentially Muslim."
When asked if she agreed, Hazel Blears replied:
"No, I don't. I think people can fundamentally disagree with policy issues, with foreign policy ... but I don't see any justification for people blowing themselves up and murdering hundreds of other people."
So in Blears-world "explicable" = "justifiable", and anyone suggesting that the terrorists don't exist in a total vacuum is an evil Al Qaeda apologist. You see, to suggest that the broader national and international political scene might have any bearing whatsoever on terrorism, is tantamount to giving the London-bombers a pat on the back.
I'm reminded of the last time that Cherie Booth found herself in hot water for saying something very sensible.
To deal with terrorism with the intellectual rigour suggested by Hazel Blears and Cherie's detractors, we'd need to organise a baboon-sacrificing ceremony to placate the cloud-gods, in which we all danced naked around a huge funeral pyre in Trafalgar Square with fresh baboon-blood dripping from our chins.
So after all this, I find myself actually siding with the conservatives on this issue... oh wait, Conservative central office have now distanced themselves from reality by saying that Dominic Grieve's statement of the bleeding obvious was merely a "personal view... not necessarily shared by other members of the Shadow Cabinet".
They have however notably not distanced themselves from frothing maniac Gerald Howarth who said that if some Muslims "don't like our way of life, there is a simple remedy - go to another country, get out." When it was put to him that some of those people were born in Britain, Mr Howarth replied: "Tough. If you don't give allegiance to this country, then leave."
Now don't get me wrong, I'd be delighted if adherents of the more unpleasant end of Islamism were all to get out. But let's have a little think about what could go wrong if we organised a huge witch-hunt to rid the entire country of every Muslim with unpalatable views...
Shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve said of the 7th July bombings:
"I have to say, I find the suicide bombing totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things... I'm sure that something like the Iraq war contributes to it, because after all the Iraq war is about the intervention of Western countries in a state that is seen as being essentially Muslim."
When asked if she agreed, Hazel Blears replied:
"No, I don't. I think people can fundamentally disagree with policy issues, with foreign policy ... but I don't see any justification for people blowing themselves up and murdering hundreds of other people."
So in Blears-world "explicable" = "justifiable", and anyone suggesting that the terrorists don't exist in a total vacuum is an evil Al Qaeda apologist. You see, to suggest that the broader national and international political scene might have any bearing whatsoever on terrorism, is tantamount to giving the London-bombers a pat on the back.
I'm reminded of the last time that Cherie Booth found herself in hot water for saying something very sensible.
To deal with terrorism with the intellectual rigour suggested by Hazel Blears and Cherie's detractors, we'd need to organise a baboon-sacrificing ceremony to placate the cloud-gods, in which we all danced naked around a huge funeral pyre in Trafalgar Square with fresh baboon-blood dripping from our chins.
So after all this, I find myself actually siding with the conservatives on this issue... oh wait, Conservative central office have now distanced themselves from reality by saying that Dominic Grieve's statement of the bleeding obvious was merely a "personal view... not necessarily shared by other members of the Shadow Cabinet".
They have however notably not distanced themselves from frothing maniac Gerald Howarth who said that if some Muslims "don't like our way of life, there is a simple remedy - go to another country, get out." When it was put to him that some of those people were born in Britain, Mr Howarth replied: "Tough. If you don't give allegiance to this country, then leave."
Now don't get me wrong, I'd be delighted if adherents of the more unpleasant end of Islamism were all to get out. But let's have a little think about what could go wrong if we organised a huge witch-hunt to rid the entire country of every Muslim with unpalatable views...
8 Comments:
_So in Blears-world "explicable" = "justifiable", and anyone suggesting that the terrorists don't exist in a total vacuum is an evil Al Qaeda apologist._
Isn't this just common currency on the "decent left"? What's interesting is finding it trotted out by Blair clones. Who have they been reading?
Chris
Can I suggest that Gerald Howarth leaves the country if he finds multiculturalism offensive. Maybe all Tory voters could leave the country, given that we've had three elections now, when it's been shown that a majority of voters in this country don't agree with them. That would please me for sure...
Boris Johnson was just very good on Radio 4; Hitchens was unsurprisingly not.
I really cannot understand people who refuse utterly to view terrorists as other than completely and utterly evil: it's as if a serial killer has more humanity than a suicide bomber, which is just insane.
Matt, yes half-way up the M1 yesterday I nearly crashed my car whilst screaming "HITCHENS YOU CUNT" at my radio. As BJ pointed out, he was constantly equivocating between the words "justify" and "explain". He then started talking about "moral explanations", God only knows what that might mean. The man seems to have no grasp of the English language, and will use even the most spurious of grounds as an excuse to label anyone he disagrees with as a "terrorist appeaser".
It's really quite simple: morally speaking, the bombings were totally unjustifiable, and everyone worth listening to knows this.
Causally speaking, the bombings are totally explicable, and this is a matter about which lots of people seem to be in denial.
I agree and I find it quite baffling the number of people saying things like Blears.
why are people so afraid of acknowledging that the iraq war is a cause? It doesn't mean sympathising with the terrorsists or even saying that the iraq war was wrong, per se.
If someone nail bombs a gay bar you could say that was caused by liberal attitudes towards homosexuality. That doesn't mean that you agree with the homophobic sentiments of the bomber or imply that those liberal attitudes were wrong.
If the iraq was, on it's own, totally just then some terrorists who blew themselves up in objection to it wouldn't suddenly make it wrong.
If someone had done that in response to the actions in the 2nd world war noone would argue that that war was suddenly unjust because some people blew themselves up.
If you think before going to war that it might provoke terrorist attacks then it's something to take into account in the decision to go to war. But that doesn't entail sympathising or appeasing the potential terrorists, but merely taking their existence into practical consideration.
Saying things like "The terrorists aren't attacking because of iraq - we were trying to free the people and remove a ruthless dictator" is utterly irrelevant if your intentions, however genuine they might have been, weren't perceived like that.
Acknowledging that the bombings were because of iraq would allow politicians to realise that if the war had been just (I don't think it was but that's a separate issue) then the failure is not in going to war itself but in the manner in which it's done and the PR exercise in getting enough people to support their cause and to ensure it doesn't come across as a war on Islam.
Sorry this isn't written very well but I'm trying to get some work done at the same time.
By the way Larry where have you disappeared to? are you still on your leeds maths email? is your phone broken?
DJCJD, yeah, utterly agree. I wonder if the reaction of the Blair government and various commentators has something to do with the massive PR job on the Iraq war. If they started to admit that the war was not the crystal-clear, morally simple act that they maintain, then this opens up a whole pandora's box.
For example, much of my opposition to the war was "practical" rather than strictly "moral". I just didn't think it likely that we'd end up in a better situation than with Saddam, and that we were, however, likely to directly kill a lot of people. The complete lack of planning for what we do on "day two" seems to have somewhat born out this view. However, the government and pro-war types have consistently phrased the argument in terms of "it's about disarming a dangerous regime of WMD" or "it's about removing a vicious dictator": how can anyone possible complain? It's only if you take account of the complexities of what is the real world that one can come up with reasoned objections to the war (at least, IMHO). So, supporters of the war are slightly trapped in trying to keep everything on a terribly morally simplistic level (terrorism = wrong, war = right, simple as that). Suggesting that terrorism is wrong, but might be a understandable, predictable, explicable reaction in a complex world, also begs a lot of other uncomfortable questions.
Then again, maybe the government actually are a bunch of simpletons: as time goes on, I see increasing evidence for this view.
why are people so afraid of acknowledging that the iraq war is a cause?
Because that would make the bombings (to some limited extent) the government's fault. If they were honest then they would say "Yes, the Iraq war has undoubtedly made events like the 7th July bombings more likely, but it was worth the risk, because..."
However they're not honest, they're full to the brim of shit. Watching them squirming and playing with words when the facts are so obviously against them is a deeply unedifying spectacle, and in my view is adding insult to the intelligence of the British public, to the injury inflicted on 7th July.
DJCJD - yes sorry, I've been below the radar recently. I've been in the sunny countryside without phone reception, doing nothing except watching zombie films (about which more soon). Am now back in Leeds, will give you a call...
Another thought which has occured to me: the government, even Hazel Blears in fact, seem to have no problem with the idea that extremist preachers can influence people to become suicide bombers. So much for "ultimate moral responsibility" or some such crap; but god forbid that the governments actions (rather than words of some nutter) could have an effect.
In short: tossers.
Post a Comment