Voting TaKtiX

You can’t defeat the ideology of extremist Islam by saying we half agree with your grievances but you’re wrong to deal with it that way

That’s my big problem with the statement. We “defeated” the IRA by recognising the legitimate grievances of the population supporting them. “We” managed 2 Palestine ceasefires by acknowledging legitimate grievances, etc…

“represion: creates the water for the terrorist fish to swim in…”

First said of Franco’s Spain but true everywhere.

Do we “half” agree with the grievances? Are some of the complaints legitimate? I say yes, we do, and some are. Given this, why can’t we ameliorate those complaints to reduce the resentment that fuels the extremists? We already know it works FFS.

You don’t need to talk to Bin Laden, but you could help deal with the iniquities that he feeds off of.

Addenda:

Justin has more on a different aspect:

“I am probably not the person to go into the Muslim community,” said Blair today. How does he know? If walking into Leeds, Dewsbury, Beeston or Rawthorpe nude but for a sandwich board with “I’M SORRY” painted on it dissuaded just one potential bomber, wouldn’t it be worth it?

Garry Smith:

This is possibly the least helpful thing I’ve ever heard our moronic Prime Minister say, and that’s really going some.

I think he’s right, on both counts. Jamie Kenny:

Only when people stop opposing my foreign policy can terrorists be defeated. Got that one cleared up, then.

Just to recap: a minister whose department is in charge of planning applications for casinos receives free hospitality from a tycoon bidding to build a supercasino. Minister stays night in tycoon’s ranch with “a small number of civil servants” (including diary secretary?) and makes charity donation to cover hospitality. Donation paid for out of public purse.

The abridged version: Prescott spends night on Colorado ranch relaxing/sipping martinis/banging his mistress, and gets you to pay for it.

Guido has more (including the news, revealed by Iain Dale, that the Daily Mail may be planning to run a story revealing alleging that DPM was having an affair with an unnamed Labour MP. Needless to say this story is not true and no-one should imagine otherwise, certainly not R**** W********’s lawyers).

The debasement of ethical standards in public life is almost complete.

I said before that it was a smokescreen and I didn’t care who he slept with. I suspect the rumours to be true, it piques my interest in a salacious way, but ultimately, I care not. But the idea that he’s off on junkets to ranches owned by people bidding for contracts he has power to grant?

“Honest” John really ought to go now. On his own, or with the tired man.

Public Service Announcement

Rachel from north London: Give Us Our 7/7 Inquiry

Read. Now. That is all.

Apologies for this outbreak of crudity but the one eyed Goblin King can fuck right off. *

What is the point of taking away our liberties in order to fight those who would take away our liberties?

DK goes a bit further and R-M has some outraged reactions. To think I nearly put some complimentary stuff in my previous post about him. We’re screwed, the Labour leadership wants constitutional reform, but only to give them more power, the Tories are giving the name “stupid party” even more meaning.

90 days is not an answer

Look, Gordon, we’ve gone through this one before. As Rachel so eloquently put it:

I am not surprised that terrorists seek to do what they can to attack my democratic society, to threaten my liberties, to spread fear, to seek to divide us.

I do not expect my democratically-elected government to do the same.

Her words summed up all our reactions then. They remain true now. Gordon? 90 days without trial? Fuck off.