Eine Kleine Nichtmusik

Witty and pertinent observations on matters of great significance OR Incoherent jottings on total irrelevancies OR Something else altogether OR All of the above

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Uncle Jimmy: talking tosh on peacekeepi​ng and the "War" on "Terror"

How often do Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, India, South Africa to name but a few, send forces to defend the downtrodden of this world?

asks Jimmy the ignorant. And he says he genuinely wants to know. OK: Google country-name AND ("peacekeeping" OR "peacekeeper") to see the answer.

In short: extremely often.

And he's STILL on about "Is Osama bin Laden really dead?" Give me strength.....

Then there's his outright lie under "Inexactitude 1". And his utter BS under "Inexactitude 3". So Saddam's killings in the past (of his own people, or of Iranians we paid him to attack) are as valid a cause for intervention as Gaddafi's imminent bloodbath which originally threatened Britons as well as Libyans? In that case, surely the even more blood-drenched history of Israel, including terrorist attacks on British and American targets, illegal development of WMDs and state sponsorship of international terrorism justifies going in and changing its racist and theocratic regime to a democratic one?

Yes, IF WMDs had been in Iraq it would have been dreadful. In the same way that IF Israel had launched a nuclear strike on Edinburgh I'd now be dead. It didn't happen, so in what way is it even peripherally relevant?

Have to love BS's suggestion in his comments that the Guardian supports the Liberal Democrats. LOL! Has he ever read it? Presumably he thinks that because it doesn't want the continuation of Blairism it must be pro-LD. He is clearly totally in denial about the extent to which Blairism has been excised from the Labour Party as a disastrous mistake. And how exactly does he think the proprietors of the Guardian and Independent should "pay" for expressing political views at variance with his own? Perhaps when his fascist revolution comes they'll be shot and their papers closed down?

Then there's his drooling imbecility about the "war" on "terror" (not a war, not on terror).

It isn't a war: it is a blank cheque for British and American governments to behave exactly as they please without regard to any laws, whether domestic or international. The entire purpose of this imaginary "war" is to mislead and terrify the populace so it will go along with whatever is proposed, whether that be torture, assassination, invasion, or wholesale abuse of human rights. It's a tried and tested process: Israel has employed the same methods for half a century or more.

While terrorism exists, the "War" isn't fighting it. While the initial justification for invading Afghanistan was to attack the Taliban who were allies of al-Qaeda, that mission was rapidly diluted by the war on Iraq which (however unpleasant Saddam was) was utterly irrelevant to terrorism. Indeed, the subsequent history of Iraq shows that by removing Saddam (and alienating so much of the Iraqi population) the USA and UK caused a substantial growth in terrorism in the region. Neither Blair nor Bush was interested in fighting terror, or the primary goal of capturing or killing OBL would not have had to wait for a regime change in Washington to be prioritised once more. Meanwhile we propped up a corrupt election-rigging dictator (Karzai), imagining that this would somehow reduce support for the Taliban. The Taliban, hated by a huge numbers of Afghans before the invasion, were now able truthfully to portray themselves as the defenders of their country against both foreign invaders and government corruption. Again, we have lost the battle for hearts and minds, and promoted the terrorism we were supposedly fighting. So perhaps at the start it was meant to be a war on terror, but in the end it was indeed a war only against Islam and Muslims.

If the war is on terror, why does it concentrate exclusively on Islamic terrorism? Most European terrorism comes from regional separatists, not Muslims, while the last civilian death from Islamic terrorism in the USA was on September 11th 2001. "Terrorism" is a fig leaf for an ideological programme: a right-wing attack on multiculturalism fuelled by a hatred of immigration and a desire for a return to an earlier, less brown-skinned, Europe (and USA). How is banning the hijab fighting terror? Or screaming about the evils of sharia law while ignoring the fact that for decades we have allowed the use of religious law to settle disputes in this country via Beth Din courts?

And of course the perpetual elephant in the room is Israel, and the hypocrisy of undertaking a "war" on "terror" which does not so much ignore as actively support that pre-eminent terrorist state, proudly flouting international law since 1967, invading every single one of its neighbours, carrying out assassinations and bombings around the world, developing nuclear weapons governed by no treaties and to which inspectors are denied access. The Obama administration's recent fine words concerning requiring Israel to comply with UN resolutions signals a welcome step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen whether he walks the walk. An international task force rolling into Palestine to remove the Israelis and their terrorist training "settlements": now that would show that there really was a war on terror. A few teams of special forces putting the bulk of Israel's WMDs out of action: that would be a war on terror. To talk garbage about the need to invade Iran because of the threat posed by its non-existent nuclear weapons programme while turning a blind eye to the fully-operational weapons in Israel, as Tony Blair frequently does, makes it crystal clear that any "war" he envisages will not be targetting terror but entrenching it in its regional base.

For Uncle Jimmy, a war against Islam and immigration is precisely the point. A war on actual terrorism would target exactly the kind of racist thugs and Nazi cultists he is so fond of. Jimmy LIKES people who call for the President of the USA to be violently overthrown; who call for the beheading of "leftists" and the blowing up of gays, and who demand that all Muslims convert or be put to death. And he loves Israel just the way it is, believing that its pre-eminence among human rights abusers needs no justification beyond biblical prophecy. So when he asks who will stand against "dictatorships and anti-democracy states and entities", the answer is very clearly "Not BlairSupporter", whose fondest dream is of anti-democratic fascist dictatorships taking hold once again in Europe. Which is of course the real threat to Britain, not the hugely-exaggerated Islamic terrorist bogeyman the Blairs and Mad Mels try so desperately to distract us with.


Post a Comment

<< Home