4 Comments

Tony Blair: “We didn’t cause the terrorism, the terrorists caused the terrorism!”

My Tony, you really believe what you hear coming out of your arse, don’t you? Your statement has the same amount of truth as the gang of thugs who threw the paraplegic into the canal and said “We didn’t cause the man to drown, the water caused him to drown!”

If the quote passed you by, it’s what Tony Blair said in the House of Commons today in response to a question from Malcolm RIfkind, Conservative party grandee and previous Secretary of Defence in the last Conservative government. Mr Rifkind, as right wing as they come, asked Tony Blair why had he still not apologised for taking the UK into the war with Iraq based on false premises.

The sad thing is, I really believe Tony thinks invading Iraq was the right thing to do. He’s a sort of “the end justifies the means” kind of person I suppose. No terrorism in Iraq before the invasion, plenty now though.

We might not do the terrorism ourselves – although an innocent Iraqi might think otherwise when heavily armed, helmeted and aggressive sunglass-wearing troops storm into their front room and shoot anyone they don’t like the look of – but we sure as eggs are eggs created the environment in which terrorism can thrive.

By creating a vacuum of power, we sucked the terrorists into the area. Or perhaps more accurately, using the nuclear phraseology, we created the first fission reaction, the spark that created the chain reaction. I don’t know if some idiot thought that by having a war in the middle East that sucked the terrorists in there it would mean they would not attack elsewhere, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Someone probably thought that terrorists were a finite group of people. They’re not. And by acting so stupidly in Iraq, and over Iraq, all we have done is to double their numbers. Now that British troops are moving out, it’s clear there will eventually be a civil war in Iraq.

Maybe it’ll break up into three separate nations – Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. Probably the best outcome in the end. What relevance do colonial era boundaries have anyway? They’ve only caused problems wherever they have been set up – think of the Tutsi and Hutu massacres in Rwanda, the tribal Zimbabwean nightmare, the civil war in Sudan, the Kurdish problem in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. All colonial in origin.

And the irony? Well, who is the biggest supporter of maintaining current national boundaries? Why, that great anti-colonialist, the USA of course! As George Bush might say, “We didn’t cause the colonial problem, the colonists did!”

Advertisements

4 comments on “Tony Blair: “We didn’t cause the terrorism, the terrorists caused the terrorism!”

  1. I am impressed another powerful post by you, please keep coming.
    Britain whenever left the colony, she also left for them well-planned and well-made conflicts for ages. She always divided nations, actually its the old British strategy. You are right by giving examples of former colonies.

    True Iraq will be divided into 3, no doubts here. And US & UK will get high profit out of it. Can you imagine how much they (US& UK) sold weapons to all these former colonies of Britain so they can fight with each other. The best example is India & Pakistan, “two nuclear enemies”, a product of Britain, later developed by US by supporting nuclear programs.

  2. Thanks for your support and for stopping back again saa. It’s always nice to get some input from another culture!

    Of course, most European countries had colonies – France, Portugal, Germany, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and so on. Many of the boundaries for the countries of the world were drawn in the 19th Century. That’s why so many African countries, for instance, have absolutely straight lines for borders: the Europeans got together in a tent in the middle of nowhere and just drew straight lines with a ruler through all those “empty white spaces” on their maps.

    Wherever they encountered stiff opposition, they would divide the tribal nations into two, or sometimes three. This meant the tribes would always be fighting each other rather than their far less numerous occupiers. They’d make sure no one tribe was big enough in any one administration area to gain total control.

    Same with the Middle East. Jordan and Iraq were created for the two sons of the Hashemite King of the area, previously under Turkish rule, which was the inheritor of the Holy Roman Empire which was the true son of Roman rule, not Rome. Syria and Lebanon were given to the French. Iraq had a revolution that led through a weak democracy to Ba’ath party rule, cemented in place by the recent dictatorship.

    Iran of course, has been a thorn in the side of the US since the 70s when the Shah was ousted and the US Embassy siege began. So, during the 1980s the Americans encouraged Iraq to go to war with Iran, and supplied a lot of mateial to Saddam – who had previously been on the side of the Russians. During the cold war, Iran had been the West’s proxy in the Mid East. By supplying Saddam with weapons, the west hoped very much to push the Russians out. But I’m digressing.

    India and Pakistan played similar roles in their sphere of the globe. Pakistan was the American proxy, India was the Russian one. Britain had some influence with Pakistan, but little with India whose Congress Party was quite left wing in nature and hated the ex-colonial masters very much. The Indians certainly didn’t easily buy weapons from the UK. It’s interesting to note though, that India and Israel have recently started cooperating in military areas. I see Israel very much in the same vein as the Crusader Kingdoms that lasted for about 80 years in the 13th Century before crumbling to dust spectacularly in response to their savage treatment of the rather meek and mild muslim local population, but that’s another story (called Deja Vu?).

    As you are German, though, saa, you are probably aware that while the other European countries were busy dividing other people and conquering them, Germany was busy dividing itself and being conquered – by hate and envy. Having said that, I suspect Germany has become the economic force it has done because of that. Britain changed less and still has all the colonial masters in place, but unfortunately with nobody to govern! Irony upon irony.

    Why do we never learn from History, from our Allies, or even from our own previous actions? Are we really such vein, egotistical creatures?

    As for the messes the British left behind, a lot of this was the direct cause of the Americans who set such rigid loan conditions – including the Breton-Woods agreement to float the pound within a single year when all British reserves had been given to the US to pay for armaments. (It’s a lot more complicated than that, of course.) Whatever, the dismatling of the British Empire was overseen by a socialist Labour Party government that ideologically didn’t like the idea of colonies, and economically couldn’t afford them. I don’t know who rushed to independence more quickly, the UK or the colonies themselves! There certainly wasn’t enough time spent on preparations, and afterwards the new leaders did not always have the best interests of anything other than their bank accounts at heart. Those that did took up loans for “With this Civil Engineering Project You can be just like America!” type of pie in the sky schemes.

    It has to be said though, that most of the colonies have done much less well since independence than they did as colonies, Ghana being one of the bright exceptions of course. I still think the country boundaries should be changed.

    Maybe there should be a UN commission set up to make recommendations, just like we have boundary commission for voting districts in the UK and other democracies.

  3. Thank you for giving me such a great piece of information. I had no idea about many things which you mentioned in your comment, I am glad I learned something more.

    About UN commission I am so hopeless, they are people sitting without powers. Look what happened in Rwanda genocide, UN totally failed as it acted so lately. Again on Iraq, UN was so weak to stop US. I think UN is made to give help ONLY when all kinds of men-made disasters are over and remaining victims are in need of food, medicine & shelter.

  4. saa, you are absolutely right. The UN was not set up to “stop” countries like the US from doing what they wanted; it was designed as a place where the main “Powers” could avoid going to war with each other directly by having somewhere to talk out their differences.

    Since the 5 permanent members of the UN have the power of Veto, that means nothing happens they don’t ALL agree to. The UN depends for money on the contributions it gets from member states, so cannot finance any actions on its own either. And since it has no standing army of its own, it has no possibility to send troops into countries like Rwanda until all the five member states agree.

    This set up is at the base of many problems of the 20th Century we still have with us today. America’s veto stops anyone castigating America’s “spoiled child” in the Middle East and so all the neighbours are up in arms about it. Now the neighbours children have taken things into their own hands as it is clear the USVeto would always stop any punishment for Israel acting against International Law.

    Hence terrorism, stemming from frustration at American foreign policy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: