O O Ø O O O O
Thug
We used to wonder why Britain went to such great extents to reserve a central role for itself in America’s grotesque War on Terror. Why did Tony Blair expend so much political capital at home and abroad—even going so far as to plagiarize faulty intelligence to accomplish this—in order to secure the dubious and dangerous honour of being George Bush’s barking wingman?
Why spend the billions of pounds required to bankroll a contemptible and nebulous crusade with no forseeable end date?
Why continue to ignore that opinion of Britons, the majority of whom—like the Spanish—now want nothing to do with foreign nation-building in democratic sinkholes?
Now we know why.
Tony Blair is a thug. His administration, its facilitators, its apologists, and its apparatus are thugs.
The blood of the 52 victims of the London Underground bombings indelibly stains Tony Blair’s hands. Despite his pathetic churchillian “We will not be terrorized” soundbite (you just were, Mr. Blair), typically British stolidness doesn’t change the great likelihood that abstinence from warmongering would have prevented such an attack.
Bloodlust and blood on his hands—what more evidence do we need?
How about a literal smoking gun?
Picture a cornered foreign national—one Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27–year old Brazilian—being hunted down Running Man style, falling to the ground in a subway car, then being physically constrained and terminated with five shots to the head, point-blank. Now picture Mr. de Menezes as a completely innocent man murdered in this oh-so-very fascist fashion.
We are being told this is a terrible tragedy. It is not. It is the direct and unavoidable result of the lack of respect for human life Tony Blair has infused into his government. He sought blood abroad, brought it home to London, and now he has personalized it, as though it had been him kneeling on Mr. de Menezes’ chest, spastically stroking the trigger with a hard-on and a sneer.
A decent human being would resign his government to allow a mandate to be sought by an untainted parliament. Mr. Blair, however, is not a decent human being. He is the mirror image of his blood-drinking war-buddy Mr. Bush.
Tony Blair is a thug and a criminal.
Evan Spence
July 26, 2005
OOØOOOODCCXIV
July 26th, 2005 at 10:27 am
I sure disagree with you on this one. The Islamic terrorists were busy trying to kill infidels well before the war on terror (see 9/11/2001, for example) and Spain continues to suffer from terorist attack attempts (luckily, thwarted) despite having withdrawn from Iraq, so Iraq and the United States’ war on terror are not the cause of the recent terrorism incidents.
There was a fine article in this morning’s National Post which makes the point that the Islamic terrorists’ goal is total worldwide destruction of all infidels. Iraq is not their motivation. That is far too simplistic. So, appeasement is not the answer, if the price of appeasement means the destruction of the western way of life. Personally, I like the western way of life — democracy, freedom of speech, economic liberty, etc. and think it is worth fighting for.
As for Blair being a thug — nice soundbite — but mistakes happen, and I expect that all involved are quite distraught about it. No one wanted to shoot an innocent man, but on the other hand no one wants more subway cars full of innocent people blown up either. It hardly makes Tony Blair a “thug” that he is leading his country’s efforts against a broad terrorist threat.
I guess on this one you and I disagree.
Cheers.
July 26th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
At first glance, I thought I might have agreed with Peter.
At second glance, (and first thought), I have serious issues with the incident.
1) The suspect was already pinned to the ground when 8 bullets were emptied into him. (7 in the head. 1 in the shoulder. Who’s the idiot that missed?)
2) Shoot-to-kill is a ridiculous policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. (hint: dead-man switch, hand grenade, and so on.)
But mainly, shoot-to-kill when someone is suspected of something is at complete odds with the principles of the “western way of life” we are trying to defend in the first place.
One thing is very true. This is not about Iraq. The Iraqi people are the most terrorized of anyone right now. Unfortunately, Iraq serves as a daily and constant reminder (and inspiration) to those involved, who want nothing less than total war between Islam, and the rest. Of course, these idiots aren’t helping. In fact, the way I read it, they are actually threatening.
But that’s the subject of a different rant.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Personally, I’m torn.
Yes, Jean-Charles’ death was very tragic. But we are hearing so many different stories (and everything is ‘breaking news’, constantly updated every 10 minutes with a new detail) that it’s still very difficult to know exactly what happened.
What I have gathered, however, is that he was acting incredibly suspiciously. If you have a multitude of seriously trained policemen focused on a suspected terrorist’s abode and they all agree that he’s acting suspiciously, I’d rather trust their gut instinct.
I also haven’t heard anything about him having been pinned down prior to the shooting, but then again, I may not have listened to the ‘breaking news’ in the last 10 minutes.
If you’re going to shoot a suicide bomber, I’d say the safest place is the head. Where else would you shoot? Not shoot? And any other area will definitely give the bomber a chance to detonate his/her goods. Isn’t it the lesser of evils in a no-win situation?
It just so happened that he wasn’t a suicide bomber. And for that, I really do grieve. But come ON - if you have police shouting at you to STOP, wouldn’t you STOP? I once pulled over on the 401 because I thought the police were waving me over when it was, in fact, the guy behind me (I was then waved through for those wanting closure on that tiny annecdote).
The way I see it, he’s another victim of the bombing. A grotesque series of unfortunate events that ended his life prematurely. He was my age to the year. I truly do grieve.
No one in government is asking for Blair’s resignation. And really, I don’t think they should at this point - it would disrupt things way too much which is exactly what the terrorists would want. So in apparently what seems to be a rather rare show of solidarity, all parties have rallied together.
I think it’s the only way the rest of the ‘civilized’ world will get through these acts of atrocity. Now to just break the 1000 year cycle of violence….
July 28th, 2005 at 8:40 am
I would hazard a guess that in order to take 7 bullets in the head, the shooter(s) would have to be pretty damned close to the suspect. Not even the kids down at the arcade are that good at a head shot.
Second:
I would rather suspect that once one started shooting, they all started shooting. No agreement necessary.
Finally, as to stopping, at least one of the Breaking News reports I’ve seen has mentioned they were not uniformed officers.
Would you stop for some random gang waving guns at you in the tube station?
But alas, we may analyze this one to death. None of us was there. Still, I’d have a hard time showing any kind of solidarity knowing my country had adopted a “shoot first, ask questions later” policy.
July 31st, 2005 at 11:59 am
I’m usually a pintday lurker, but this time, I’m sufficiently interested to comment. I agree with you to a point. The war in Iraq had dubious justification and it’s a shame that the UK had to be involved in it. But to lay the blame for the London Suicide bombings purely at Tony Blair’s door for embroiling us in the war? That’s a little too far.
Were we bombed because of our involvement in Iraq? Or were we bombed because we’re a powerful western democracy? I suspect that it was the second reason.
As for a guy getting shot on the tube: In the current climate, running from Police (who identify themselves as Police before pulling guns over here) into a tube station is likely to end badly. He ran away from the Police. They made an unfortunate call, but it’s not a call I can blame them for in this climate.
Tony Blair is a thug? Do you think that any other Labour Leader would have made any different decisions? Do you think a Conservative Government would have made any different decisions? It’s easy to blame one man for the situation we’re in, but it’s sadly not that easy. The world is in a mess, and it’s the fault of a lot of people, not two political leaders.
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Peter:
Some Islamic extremists’ goals are the “total worldwide destruction of all infidels.” However, they are a very, very tiny minority. The foreign policy actions of Blair, Bush and others lend these extremists popular support from the populations of those being occupied, bombed, or attacked.
Bombing foreign countries–for whatever reason–helps to arm and support terrorists. (Summarily detaining dark-skinned, bearded folks does the same.)
Unlike the extremists on both sides would have you believe, this is not a war between civilizations. This is a war between small, violent factions on boths sides, to which we should not lend credibility through moral relativism. (”Appeasement is not the answer.”)
If it was wrong to bomb civilians before 9/11, then it remains wrong after 9/11, no matter how many times Bush tells us “Freedom is worth the price.” If it was wrong to summarily execute suspects before the London Tube bombings, it is wrong to do so now. Blair, however, has actually said that more shootings will likely occur. Incredible! Like Bush, he’s perfectly willing to have other people pay with their lives, so he can play the part of Wartime Leader.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Bryson:
In answer to your question, “Were we bombed because of our involvement in Iraq? Or were we bombed because we’re a powerful western democracy?” I think we should look at the term “powerful western democracy.”
If Britain had been merely a “peaceful western democracy,” I am certain there would have been no bombings in London.
But since Britain feels it is important to act like a world power and push others around—an historical imperative, I suppose—we have seen the violent, tragic and destructive consequences.
A peaceful republic, constitutionally limited to prevent interference in foreign affairs, would have nothing to fear from terrorists. (Unfortunately, I don’t know of any, so I can’t provide examples. Maybe Switzerland. Have the Swiss been bombed? Let’s act like the Swiss.)
Further to your comment “The world is in a mess, and it’s the fault of a lot of people, not two political leaders.” Yes, there are more than just two people involved, but responsibility has to be taken at the top. Should London’s police chief resign? Yes. Should the police officers themselves be stripped of their badges? Yes. But those are collateral casualties in a broader altercation, the responsibility for which is squarely in Blair’s lap. (And Bush’s but that goes without saying.)
I would never contend that a Tory government would act any differently.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Look, I know that it seems suspicious that a man ran away from un-uniformed men claiming to be cops. But how was he supposed to know they were cops? And even if he did know and he was an illegal immigrant does it mean he deserved so many shots to the HEAD. My point is that if they wanted to detain him for questioning (which is the only reasonable alternative - killing a man with a bomb usually means it will go off anyway) they probably should have aimed elsewhere (arms,hands, bomb-triggering limbs). The point is that it has apparently become okay to kill an innocent civilian because he SEEMED suspcious - correct me if I am wrong but this is exactly the kind of shit terrorists want - they want governments to become suspicious of their own people as a mechanism to turn the two against one another - this is the kind of anarchy they seek and it is being provided without any thought for the consequences - I am not saying that inaction is the cure - it clearly isn’t - the point is the British gov’t acted exactly as it was expected to act in the wake of an unexpected attack - killing an innocent civilian without anything close to probable cause. Break the limited and weak closeness of democratic citizens and their gov’t and chaos is an inevitable eventual step - of course not to that level of simplicity. The point is that government bodies ARE willing to turn against their own people as a response to terrorisitic activities irregardless of the the consequences - I am not saying this is unwarranted but what I am saying is that the rights of even suspected people come first - they are still people and their deaths are not something any gov’t can take back and thus justify - innocent dead citizens are exactly what terrorists want from supposedly protective governments.