Is Blair a hypocrite?

flogen

There have been calls lately at Blair to negotiate with the terrorists holding Bigley, as he has already done so with terrorists such as the IRA (although I think his by out clause here is he negotiated with Sinn Fein, and not the IRA, but in reality there were negotiations made between the British gov and the IRA), and that he refusing to do so makes him a hypocrite. Would you agree? Now we can agree that the IRA and Al Quaida are two very different types of terrorist, but they are terror groups nonetheless.

Personally I think it is slightly hypocritical for him to do something like this, although to negotiate with Al Quaida and groups like them would almost certainly lead to them pushing things more. Their will to go further than the IRA and the fact that there are more Islamic terror groups than there are Irish Republican terror groups who all want appeasment would make things much messier than they already are.

flogen

mike65

He's not a hypocrite rather he knows that an end can be achieved talking to the Provos (in whatever fashion) whereas the group that has Bigley are not the kind of ppl anyone can negotiate with, so there is no point in being seen to talk and fail anyway...

Mike.

shotamoose

They're not really comparable situations. Firstly there was an overlap between what the IRA and the British wanted - a reduced British Army presence in Northern Ireland and more self-rule. Secondly, the IRA cause had a fairly significant minority supporting it, and politicians ready to talk. Based on a fairly shallow knowledge of what's going on in Iraq, I don't think any of these apply to the kidnappers and their demands.

Cork

Is Blair a hypocrite?

No. His dealings with Bertie & to the NI situation has shown Tony Blair to be both decent & honourable.

The question here is :

Should elected governments negotaite with terrorists?

I believe, they should not.

Terrorism is a waste of time. It is futile & it achieves precious little.

The situation in Iraq is a mess that has to be solved.

Terrorists don't have solutions. The international community needs to take charge of the situation out there.

I would like if the UN had a role but even the Red Cross seem to be legimate targets to terrorists.

flogen

I'm sorry cork, but while mike and shotamouse have given reason as to why the IRA and Islamic terrorists are different and one can be negotiated with while the other can't, you haven't.
You say that he's not a hypocrite, but he shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Do you believe that should apply across the board, or should negotiations with more "reasonable" (using such a word in the loosest possible sense) groups like the IRA be allowed as progress is attainable with them?

flogen

flogen

mike65 wrote:

He's not a hypocrite rather he knows that an end can be achieved talking to the Provos (in whatever fashion) whereas the group that has Bigley are not the kind of ppl anyone can negotiate with, so there is no point in being seen to talk and fail anyway...

Mike.

Do you not see this stance as hypocritical?
The public policy of the British government (and most western governments) is that they do not negotiate with terrorists, full stop.
If what you say is true, Blair is opperating under the policy of "We do not negotiate with terrorists, unless we can get somewhere with them".

While the two situations are different, as I stated above, if the policy of the government is not to negotiate with terrorists then how can they make acceptions without having to change the rules?

flogen

gandalf

While governments say they will not negotiate with Terrorists I do not believe this statement to be entirely true. Given the right circumstances they will, as with Northern Ireland.

I believe the initial discussions with the IRA were right and necessary. The British Government knew what the IRA wanted they had clear goals and as shotamoose said there is an overlap, the British want to withdraw troops and resources from Northern Ireland as it is a major drain on their economy. The IRA realised that they would never win by military means. I do disagree with them allowing Sinn Fein into positions of power before the IRA disbanded but that looks like it won't matter soon.

With these Islamic extremist Terrorist organisations you do not have this situation. I doubt a large amount of the Iraqi people support them (although if the US keep carrying out precision strikes like today’s in Fallagua that may change!), they are fragmented (this whole Al Quaeda terror threat is bullsh!t, there is no grand terror network!!!) and they have varying different goals. I am half expecting one group to ask the US/UK to "Free Willy". Most of these guys are not Iraqi's who are over there to kill Americans and peddle their perverted version of Islam. No one can negotiate with them .

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

The main and most important distinction between the IRA and groups like
Tawhid wal Jihad is that the IRA/SF were/are a coherant organisation which worked towards a satisfying a particular goal of thier followers that could be met half-way through negotiation and compromise (even if the latter is not admitted), Tawhid wal Jihad on the other hand represent no-one but themselves and they have "demands" which no government could possibly meet. Don't get distracted by the stated aim of freeing women prisoners, these guys belong to a sub-set of Islam which treats women like dirt. If they were released Bigley would still die.

Mike.

bonkey

Lets not lose sight of the fact that the terrorists' demands are not something I believe the British have the authority to grant. They are demanding the release of female prisoners from American controlled prisons - something Mr. Blair can in reality do SFA about.

I still believe there is a slight degree of hypocracy in saying "we do not negotiate with terrorists" when you have done so in the past, but for the above reason (and others), I don't think Blair has much of a choice here.

jc

Tommy Vercetti

bonkey wrote:

I still believe there is a slight degree of hypocracy in saying "we do not negotiate with terrorists" when you have done so in the past, but for the above reason (and others), I don't think Blair has much of a choice here.

I'd be of the opinion that it's a little more than hypocritical to say it when you're in bed with the biggest terrorist of them all, Mr. Bush.

arcadegame2004

Well the IRA and Al Qaeda are very different groups. The IRA is secular, whereas Al Qaeda are theocratic in outlook, and the latter kind of terrorist would obviously be extremely difficult to satisfy in terms of granting their demands. The IRA's demands for a United Ireland probably reflect the majority sentiment on this island if the polls taken on this issue are to be believed (the last one in a newspaper in this country showed 80% in favour in principle). so at least their ultimate aim could be considered mainstream. Unfortunately, Al Qaida's is not and that makes one wonder if there is much point in negotiating with them.

I resent the way in which Western governments have colluded in the exploitation by oppressive regimes of 911 as an excuse to legitimise their oppression of national minorities, on the basis of calling it "part of the US-led war on terror". This has particularly gone far too far with respect to Russia and Chechnya. The killing goes on every day in Chechnya and the West says nothing. Then about 3 times every 2 years there is a terrorist attack in Russia and then of course you have Bertie Ahern/GW Bush/Blair etc. signing books of condolences in the Russian Embassy. Of course they should sign them. But they should also sign books of condolences for the Chechen civilians brutally massacred in the concentration-camp that Russia has turned Chechnya into.

bonkey

Any chance you could stay on topic, rather than using this thread as yet another excuse to dig up your Chechnyan outrage again?

ionapaul

Legend maintains that there is a thread on the Fashion board ('Ponchos: Hot or Not?!!!', a wise man tells me) that Arcadegame managed to slowly manipulate into yet another 'evil-Russians-in-Chechnya' flame war! The ladies didn't know what hit them...:)

the_syco

Just something; there are 2 ladies being held in US prisons (none in the prison stated by the terrorists, tho). One is called Mrs Germ. No doubt on of the scientists.

arcadegame2004

bonkey wrote:

Any chance you could stay on topic, rather than using this thread as yet another excuse to dig up your Chechnyan outrage again?

Well Bonkey, I feel that my references to that issue are relevant to this topic, insofar as Blair has linked Chechen "terrorism" to "international terrorism". Since 911, Bush, Blair and Putin have portrayed all illegal groups committing violence as being part of the faceless phantom called "International terrorism". I was using the Chechen issue to illustrate Blair's hypocrisy in that he has talked to the representatives of armed-separatists in NI but is always prating about "standing shoulder to shoulder blah blah" when backing Putin not talking to "terrorists".

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well Bonkey, I feel that my references to that issue are relevant to this topic, insofar as Blair has linked Chechen "terrorism" to "international terrorism".
...
I was using the Chechen issue to illustrate Blair's hypocrisy in that he has talked to the representatives of armed-separatists in NI but is always prating about "standing shoulder to shoulder blah blah" when backing Putin not talking to "terrorists".

OK - I'm afraid I missed the connection....but in my defence you started by suggesting that there may not be any point in negotiating with the likes of Al Qaeda, and then expect us to deduce that you're actually criticising Bair for coming to the conclusion that you're suggesting might be the reality?

Maybe I'm just getting slow in my old age

As an aside (and a response by PM will be fine, or a short reply in-thread...lets not get sidetracked)...does anyone know whether or not there was anything behind the allegations by the Russians that 10 of the 32 terrorists in Beslan were Arabic, and that many had been trained at Al Qaeda camps? Was it just bluster, or did it ever even get followed up?)

The IRA have not been involved in an active campaign of Terrorism against British held territory since the ceasefire. AQ is currently running operations against the coalition. That's the difference. Governments have a policy of not dealing with Terrorist demands in regards to hostage taking, planting of bombs etc. All actions that are part of an active campaign.

The North & the talks with the IRA are with the aim of resolution. Talks or negotiation with AQ or other terrorist groups at this stage would be capitilation. Theres the difference for me.

Personally, while I disagree with the British involvement in Iraq, I think of Blair as one of the best and most honest politicians I've seen in *my* life. Hypocrite? Nope. Not by my book.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
OK - I'm afraid I missed the connection....but in my defence you started by suggesting that there may not be any point in negotiating with the likes of Al Qaeda, and then expect us to deduce that you're actually criticising Blair for coming to the conclusion that you're suggesting might be the reality?

Well let me put it like this. The IRA called a ceasefire. But the Real IRA then planted a bomb killing 29 in Omagh.

How would you feel if you were told that Omagh was "the Irish" committing terrorism? It's no different from some commentators and persons arguing that Beslan was an attack by "the Chechens". It is a blood-libel to tar all members of an entire race with the label of terrorist, especially given that even the Russian press is claiming that just 10 of the 26 or so hostage-takers were even Chechen. We need to be very careful not to stigmatise an entire race, especially since Britain used to do this to us before we escape their imperial clutches in 1920. As I mentioned in a previous post, the elected President of independent Chechnya before Russian invaded (who is now the Chechen rebel leader) has condemned what happened at Beslan. Let us not automatically take other people's words for what passes as a terrorist. The failure of Blair to draw the distinction between pro-independence militants that target soldiers and the extremists who target children is deeply unfortunate. The old IRA of 1919-21 was also called "terrorists" by the British in 1920 so we need to have a deep consciousness of the parallels between our situation and that of other independence-seeking countries before we automatically accept the cat calling the kettle a terrorist, to paraphrase another simile.

On Iraq more specifically, Yes, if a militant-group is ideologically-driven simply by a desire to create chaos as an end in itself - as Al Qaeda are - then talking will probably not do any good. But if there are only 2 women in Coalition custody (and supposedly NONE in Iraqi custody) then I say let them go. They are unlikely to be much of a threat. As far as I am concerned saving the hostage's life has to be the priority, rather than a politician not wanting to lose face.

Originally posted by Klaz
The IRA have not been involved in an active campaign of Terrorism against British held territory since the ceasefire. AQ is currently running operations against the coalition. That's the difference. Governments have a policy of not dealing with Terrorist demands in regards to hostage taking, planting of bombs etc. All actions that are part of an active campaign.

Well I feel that it depends on what the demands are. If the demands of terrorists are reasonable demands that most of world opinion would agree with (though not with the terrorists' methods of acheiving them) then I say please politicians, enough of the slogans and wanting to appear tough. The protection of human-lives has to come first. If Kenneth Bigley is killed, I don't think the Bigley family will consider Blair as blameless in it. In my opinion a Russian withdrawal from Chechnya was a perfectly reasonable demand. The fact that the IRA wanted a United Ireland does not mean a United Ireland should never happen because it is a view that the IRA terrorists hold. I want a United Ireland. Does that make me a terrorist? Of course not! Terrorists and law-abiding citizens can share many objectives but have radically different methods of acheiving them. I am opposed to murdering innocent people, and favour a United Ireland. Does this mean that because the Real IRA etc. want a United Ireland too and are terrorist, that we must prevent it happen so as to be seen as "not giving in to terrorists"? Of course not (in my opinion). Do not judge the goals of all terrorists as being undesirable just because their methods are despicable. A great many ordinary people sometimes share their political-goals, and if those goals are reasonable and agreeing to them can save hostages lives, then I say grant them.

This should not necessarily be seen as "encouraging more terrorism". I have already said that if the terror-group's demands are extreme, e.g. setting up a Taliban-style regime in Iraq, then negotiation with them may be pointless.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

How would you feel if you were told that Omagh was "the Irish" committing terrorism? It's no different from some commentators and persons arguing that Beslan was an attack by "the Chechens".

Or frequent comments from posters named arcadegame2004 about atrocities carried out on Chechens by "the Russians".....

It is a blood-libel to tar all members of an entire race with the label of terrorist, especially given that even the Russian press is claiming that just 10 of the 26 or so hostage-takers were even Chechen.

I'm struggling to find the relevance. Are you claiming that Blair is referring to "the Chechens" as terrorists or something?

We need to be very careful not to stigmatise an entire race,

Yes we do, whether that race be Russian or otherwise.

The failure of Blair to draw the distinction between pro-independence militants that target soldiers and the extremists who target children is deeply unfortunate.

Again - can you show me a reference where Blair has referred to all Chechens as terrorist? Or are you claiming that he has condemned some acts as terrorism that you feel weren't terrorist at all, but legitimate acts of something-that-isn't-terrorism-in-name-but-is-the-exact-same-in-nature?

f a militant-group is ideologically-driven simply by a desire to create chaos as an end in itself - as Al Qaeda are

I give up. If you seriously believe that....honestly....there is really no point in trying to continue this discussion. That has to be the most ridiculous explanation I've heard yet for the reason for Al Qaeda's actions - that they want to create chaos as an end in itself.

jc

The old IRA of 1919-21 was also called "terrorists" by the British in 1920 so we need to have a deep consciousness of the parallels between our situation and that of other independence-seeking countries before we automatically accept the cat calling the kettle a terrorist, to paraphrase another simile.

Just as in WW2, "freedom forces" in the Greek Mainland, while acting alongside Allied forces, made acts of rape, pillaging, and destruction of their own people. Let us not groups all freedom fighters as wonderful people fighting for freedom, but rather as multiple groups all capable of acting outside of your & our views.

On Iraq more specifically, Yes, if a militant-group is ideologically-driven simply by a desire to create chaos as an end in itself - as Al Qaeda are - then talking will probably not do any good. But if there are only 2 women in Coalition custody (and supposedly NONE in Iraqi custody) then I say let them go. They are unlikely to be much of a threat. As far as I am concerned saving the hostage's life has to be the priority, rather than a politician not wanting to lose face.

And just say that these women are mass-murderers, or child-killers. Should you let them go unpunished to kill again? Saving a hostage's life is a priority within limits. For me the limit is drawn when it releases people that are capable and willing to kill again. One persons life is not worth more than 5 others, just because that person is European or Western.

Well I feel that it depends on what the demands are. If the demands of terrorists are reasonable demands that most of world opinion would agree with (though not with the terrorists' methods of acheiving them) then I say please politicians, enough of the slogans and wanting to appear tough. The protection of human-lives has to come first.

and so you create a precedent that can be expanded to cover most situations. No negotiationing with Terrorists mean that its effectiveness is blunted.

Again, I ask is one Europeans life worth the deaths of multiple others? Do you agree with the release of mass-murderers just to save one European? I certainly don't.

Anyone know for sure, why these women were arrested in the first place? Cause i've heard some very different reasons from many sources, but none very good resources.

Do not judge the goals of all terrorists as being undesirable just because their methods are despicable.

No. I think I will. Their actions have determined the response I'm willing to give. Lethal force. If another group asks for the same, and is willing to fight in a civilised manner, then I'm willing to listen/consider. AQ have stepped outside that boundary.

This should not necessarily be seen as "encouraging more terrorism". I have already said that if the terror-group's demands are extreme, e.g. setting up a Taliban-style regime in Iraq, then negotiation with them may be pointless.

But you are encouraging it. You're basically saying that their methods work in getting what they want. Which means they'll be used more.

arcadegame2004

That has to be the most ridiculous explanation I've heard yet for the reason for Al Qaeda's actions - that they want to create chaos as an end in itself.

Why? Remember the extracts of recorded discussions between AW members that showed they wanted to stir up a civil war in Iraq? AQ need chaos so that a national government is too occupied fighting a civil war to stop AQ operating on their territory.

On the Russians, I was not tarring all Russians with the same brush. However, those Russians with access to the Internet and/or other sources of information who have known since before the re-election of Fuhrer Vladimir Putin that the Russian army and the FSB are rounding up innocent civilians to be raped/killed/mutilated and yet still voted to re-elect Putin are equally culpable as those Germans who voted for Hitler, in my opinion.

No. I think I will. Their actions have determined the response I'm willing to give. Lethal force. If another group asks for the same, and is willing to fight in a civilised manner, then I'm willing to listen/consider. AQ have stepped outside that boundary.

National governments that slaughter innocent people deliberately are also engaging in terrorism as far as I am concerned. Such governments, including Nazi Germany and the current Russian Government are therefore not morally superior to the Beslan terrorists, especially since all the evidence from Human Rights groups (who have no incentive to make it up) shows that Russia is committing mass extermination against Chechen men, women and children. Oppression can be found to be the root of a hell of a lot of the terrorist problems in the world, including Chechnya and the Palestinian territories. If your only response to terrorism is "lethal force" then you are attacking the symptoms but not stopping the disease since the root causes of the disease remain untreated. That is to say:what drives these people into carrying out such extreme acts? I don't believe most of these people are geneticall born into terrorism. They have obviously had family members and friends butchered by the imperial rulers and this has warped their whole moral judgements. Do not let Ariel Sharon and Putin off the hook here. They are both tyrants and State-terrorism should not be overlooked as a form of terrorism.

On the Russians, I was not tarring all Russians with the same brush. However, those Russians with access to the Internet and/or other sources of information who have known since before the re-election of Fuhrer Vladimir Putin that the Russian army and the FSB are rounding up innocent civilians to be raped/killed/mutilated and yet still voted to re-elect Putin are equally culpable as those Germans who voted for Hitler, in my opinion.

You say you're not putting them all together, and then in the same sentence, say that they are the same, as long as they have internet access...

And again you're grouping the whole Russian army together as those who are commiting these acts. Can we stop with the generalisations?

And voting for Hitler wasn't such a bad thing. Continuing to support him once the holocaust became known was.

arcadegame2004

You say you're not putting them all together, and then in the same sentence, say that they are the same, as long as they have internet access...

And again you're grouping the whole Russian army together as those who are commiting these acts. Can we stop with the generalisations?

And voting for Hitler wasn't such a bad thing. Continuing to support him once the holocaust became known was.

Look at how the authorities recommended that Colon Yuri Budanov (the only Russian soldier jailed for the murder and rape of a Chechen girl in spite of the evidence that the murder of Chechens by the Russian army is common in Chechnya) be pardoned! What does this remind us of! Sounds familiar to me! No wonder the Chechens hate the Russians so much. And look how Putin has promoted those soldiers at the heart of the massacre-program in Chechnya.

BTW, I am bemused by your claim that voting for Hitler was okay, even before the Holocaust. Remember that in Mein Kampf Hitler stated that he wanted to hang every Polish man, woman and child and exterminate the Jews.

BTW, I am bemused by your claim that voting for Hitler was okay, even before the Holocaust. Remember that in Mein Kampf Hitler stated that he wanted to hang every Polish man, woman and child and exterminate the Jews.

He also stopped common-place starvation, brought medicine back into commonplace, gave employment, made the average german proud to be alive again etc etc etc. Sure you can look at the bad, there's alot of that. Just don't be blinded into thinking he did nothing good. And to germans of the time, the practical bonuses of employment and food, were more important than a book that contained blind aggression towards all things jewish. Remember anti-jewishism was something that Germans were used to for hundreds of years. Hitler was the first to try exterminating them all in Germany.

No wonder the Chechens hate the Russians so much. And look how Putin has promoted those soldiers at the heart of the massacre-program in Chechnya.

I'd assume that some Chechens don't hate the Russians. You're generalising again. The whole Chechen population hasn't taken up arms. There's many/I] who hate the Russian occupation, and Russians themselves. And for each one I'm sure the reason is very personal and distinct from the other person.

And I'm not defending Putin. I'm asking you to stop placing the blame on all of the Russian Army.

meepmeep

I think Blair is right to not negotiate with these terrorists. The reason these women were put in jail in the first place was that they are experts in making chemical and biological weapons and were actually manufacturing anthrax bombs for these terrorist groups.

What else would the terrorists want them for, but to make more of these bombs for their war on the west? So hes left with the option to probably let one man die, or let these women loose to play a part in their "war". I don't think its fair to call him a hypocrite because hes not willing to negotiate here because the negotiations with the IRA were to bring peace. The negotiations here would be to give the terrorists potential weapons in their war of terror.

Its an awful position to be in, but if it was me then i wouldn't negotiate either. This gives the terrorists the green light to carry on kidnapping and threatening to slaughter people unless they get what they want.

Sorry to interrupt your Russia-Chechnya conversation :cool:

Sorry to interrupt your Russia-Chechnya conversation

Interrupt away. We're going off topic.

arcadegame2004

meepmeep wrote:

I think Blair is right to not negotiate with these terrorists. The reason these women were put in jail in the first place was that they are experts in making chemical and biological weapons and were actually manufacturing anthrax bombs for these terrorist groups.

What else would the terrorists want them for, but to make more of these bombs for their war on the west? So hes left with the option to probably let one man die, or let these women loose to play a part in their "war". I don't think its fair to call him a hypocrite because hes not willing to negotiate here because the negotiations with the IRA were to bring peace. The negotiations here would be to give the terrorists potential weapons in their war of terror.

Its an awful position to be in, but if it was me then i wouldn't negotiate either. This gives the terrorists the green light to carry on kidnapping and threatening to slaughter people unless they get what they want.

Sorry to interrupt your Russia-Chechnya conversation :cool:

I know those 2 women were scientists but what evidence have you that they were producting chemical and biologicial weapons for terrorists? Where are these mythical WMDs?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why? Remember the extracts of recorded discussions between AW members that showed they wanted to stir up a civil war in Iraq? AQ need chaos so that a national government is too occupied fighting a civil war to stop AQ operating on their territory.

Yesssss......

all of which shows that chaos is not a goal, but rather a necessary step along the way to achieving a goal.

Which brings me back to what I said....alleging that the chaos is a goal in and of itself is farcical.

On the Russians, I was not tarring all Russians with the same brush.

Let me see if I understand this...

Going by comments you've made in previous posts (and I will dig up links if you're memory of what you write yoruself is that short) you have :

1) Chastised people for tarring all of a people with hte same brush when they referred to actions by "the Chechens"
2) Chastised Blair for tarring all of a people with the same brush, despite showing no evidence that he has ever even referred to "the Chechens"
3) Referred to "the Russians" repeatedly, (and in the same timeframe as 1 and 2 above) when meaning either "the Russian military", "the Russian government", "some of the Russian people", and vast amounts of other sub-sets of who "the Russians" actually are.

So, apparently when anyone refers to anything in the abstract and they aren't you then they are tarring with the same brush....but when you do it, its clearly different.

Yeah...that seems pretty consistent with your usual style of structuring an argument...

And getting somewhat back on topic....none of this is in any way relevant until you show that Blair - as you've alleged - has been trying to make his "international terrorism" umbrella cover something that clearly isn't related to international terrorism. You've suggested as much about Chechnya, but to date haven't supplied a single incident which wasn't related to Islamic-extremist-originated terrorism which Blair then tried to hook in.

So I go back to my original point...you're using this as a mechanism to rant on about Chechnya rather than addressing the topic at hand. Having asked for the relationship, and subsequently questioned how you make the connection, you haven't answered a single one of those questions. You've given more broad sweeping condemnation, which assumably you level at Blair, without ever bothering to show that he's actually doing the stuff you say he is...

As I said...show me one action carried out by non-terrorist-related groups in Chechnya that Blair has tried to link to international terrorism. If you can't do that, then you really are just using this as an excuse to vent about the Russians again.

jc

mike65

I knew I was right to count myself out of becoming a Mod on this board!;)

Mike.

cleansingfire

I thought that Sinn fein was different from the IRA and that it was Sinn Fein that Blair was negotiating with? When did he negotiate with the IRA? What was the deal on offer?