The two Blairs have pronounced and at last we know we are safe !
Our wonderful Prime Minister has announced new tough measures to combat terrorism.With steely voice and piercing eyes he has told the terrorists and their ilk to watch out or else.[ No doubt , Alistair Campbell was secretly on hand to advice on presentation. " Now , remember , Tone , no f*****g grinning on this one , right ? "]
Despite our laws on being an accessory after and before a crime and conspiracy and so on , there will be a lot of new tough laws.Border checks are to be beefed up.
The other Blair , the Head of the Met. said that maybe [!] these laws could have been brought in earlier , but , anyway , we had got them now , so that was good news , wasn't it . Phew ! thank God for that.
Any terrorist , not already in the country and beavering away , will now find it more difficult to get in . Those already here will have to go to all the trouble of going underground or changing their identity ----or just joining in and mingling with the half million illegals. That'll stop 'em blowing things up.
At last our government is getting tough as soon as they can get it organised , and we can now go about our daily business with a whistle , a smile and a merry quip.

Well done Tony, at last we're going in the right direction. :thumbsup:

Hope he keeps up the good work :clap:

Scutts
I do too , Scutts
I just get the feeling , it's all a tad too late .Like twenty years ?
I didn't hear Tony saying anything about how we ought to have been ten times tougher in the past , but , maybe I missed that ?

Well, pardon me for being rather sceptical, but Blair and his various Home Secretaries have said similar things since 1997. It is usually in response to media exposure of scandals in our asylum and immigration system, or in response to the publication of outbursts by extremists. When the furore dies down, it turns out that nothing has actually been done (or a policy proposal gets washed out at the legislative stage, or is found to contravene the Human Rights act etc). I do hope I am wrong this time, but I will believe it when I see it.

I think the intent is there now but we have to hope the Human Rights act can be ammended (without the do-gooders like Liberty messing it up) so we can start to get rid of these extremist idiots...

a small step in the right direction.....time firm action was taken against extremists in this country - time they went back to their caves...

So, Tony Blair is intending to make various Muslim organisations illegal, and restrict freedom of speech. Well, it certainly helped Maggie get the IRA under control, didn't it? Didn't it?

I think he should go the whole hog and have a few executed for the public consumption.....

say half time at the Charity Shields - the execution of 20 suspected al-qaeda women and children - could be a real vote winner (I'll ring Ally C up)

or just randoms - round up 20 down and outs, offer them a hot meal and 15 mins of fame....

:thumbsup:

In the spirit of diversity and understanding I have an idea.

Instead of baning certain Muslim groups why not ban ALL religious groups?

apart from Jedi of course

Better late than never.

Tony Blair has now announced some measures that various comentators have been urging for some time. These people have been denounced as right wing cranks, scare mongersm and even racist when infact they have been right all along. At last the Government is catching up a little with public opinion.

Yes have to agree with most comments posted, nice to see the sign of change in britain as regards these fanatics. Possibly a bit late but a move in the right direction to try to stop these lunatics. Just hope it dosnt get bogged down with legal tape and do gooders.:thumbsup:

How predictable is this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/412658.stm)

Originally posted by DanSumption
So, Tony Blair is intending to make various Muslim organisations illegal, and restrict freedom of speech. Well, it certainly helped Maggie get the IRA under control, didn't it? Didn't it?

Dan,

The 'various Muslim organisations' he is seeking to ban are Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the offshoots of al-Muhajiroun, whose members have been preaching hatred and violence for years without hindrance. Indeed, prominent members of these organisations have publicly stated their approval of terror attacks in the UK. If you think these people are just an insignificant group of harmless cranks, well recent conferences held by the former group have attracted thousands of people (one at the weekend helf in London attracted over 1000).. There is evidence also that the four would be suicide bombers now in custody were connected to the latter group and the two suicide bombers who went to Israel were connected to the former. Moreover, it is estimated that over 3000 British Muslims have attended terroist training camps abroad, and that many of these have been encouraged in this by organisations such as the ones mentioned above. If you think our laws prohibiting incitement are tough enough already, the head of the Met said last week that of 20 such cases sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in recent years, only one resulted in a prosecution.

As for the analogy with the IRA, well it did in my view play a role in ultimately defeating the IRA. It was made clear to the latter that the explicit advocacy of violence would not be tolerated - in this way the open advocacy of violence was de-legitimised. As a way round this, the IRA attempted to create a distinction between their political and military wings. Gradually, the political objectives of the IRA, and the significance of the political wing, began to take precedence over the advocacy of violence.

Originally posted by DanSumption
So, Tony Blair is intending to make various Muslim organisations illegal, and restrict freedom of speech. Well, it certainly helped Maggie get the IRA under control, didn't it? Didn't it?

It depends on how you look at it Dan. You could that was the first step in pressuring the IRA into becoming a real political party and abandoning their militant ways!

It just depends which side of the Margaret Thatcher fence you are on I think :D

P.S, I’ve just noticed LordChaverly has already said what I had much more eloquently!

Originally posted by robbie
In the spirit of diversity and understanding I have an idea.

Instead of baning certain Muslim groups why not ban ALL religious groups?

apart from Jedi of course

Jedis are just made up though :D

Although apparently some folk do put Jedi as their religion on census forms.. :lol:

I see the charlie opposites are at it again, it was 100% predictable, they always come up with stupid dialogue about human rights, what about out human rights not to be blown to peices, all they can do is criticise, why don't they something constructive instead of bleating on about terrorist rights, both the Blairs are right and as soon as we get this legislation on the Statute book the better. GO FOR IT TONY : I'm right behind you all the way : GOOD LAD!!!

Fareast, - you forgot about the other Blair. A leading 'civil rights' barrister who stands to make a packet out of contesting her hubby's diktats :D

Originally posted by Greybeard
Fareast, - you forgot about the other Blair. A leading 'civil rights' barrister who stands to make a packet out of contesting her hubby's diktats :D

Exactly.

They will need to make some quick and easy cash if Blair is not to stand for re-election as he say's he's not.

Let's not forget what a money grabber she is. Police will probably have to give her business card out with each arrest!!

Originally posted by lee79
Exactly.

They will need to make some quick and easy cash if Blair is not to stand for re-election as he say's he's not.



He's starting to sound just a little bit hysterical. I wonder what happens now to his 'incitement to religious hatred' bill ?

Presumably he's not out to sow seeds of general distrust of Muslims, - but is that how the young hot-heads will see it ?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The 'various Muslim organisations' he is seeking to ban are Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the offshoots of al-Muhajiroun, whose members have been preaching hatred and violence for years without hindrance. Indeed, prominent members of these organisations have publicly stated their approval of terror attacks in the UK. If you think these people are just an insignificant group of harmless cranks, well recent conferences held by the former group have attracted thousands of people (one at the weekend helf in London attracted over 1000).. There is evidence also that the four would be suicide bombers now in custody were connected to the latter group and the two suicide bombers who went to Israel were connected to the former. Moreover, it is estimated that over 3000 British Muslims have attended terroist training camps abroad, and that many of these have been encouraged in this by organisations such as the ones mentioned above. If you think our laws prohibiting incitement are tough enough already, the head of the Met said last week that of 20 such cases sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in recent years, only one resulted in a prosecution.
I don't deny any of that, bet I don't think it's particularly relevant to what I was saying.

I'm not opposed to what Blair is doing for "bleeding heart" "do-gooding" "human rights" reason or whatever other handy labels anyone fancies coming up with, I'm opposed to what he's doing because I don't like seeing people bombed, just as I was opposed to the Iraq war because I don't like seeing people bombed.

Driving the IRA further underground did not play a role in ultimately defeating the IRA. It generated sympathy for the organisation in some quarters which led to a ten-year intensification of their bombing campaigns, which only ended when the government started to tackle some of the issues which drove people to support the IRA.

Once again, the only press commentator I've found speaking plainly, clearly and simply on this matter is al-Qaeda expert Jason Burke. His article seven ways to stop the terror (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1544140,00.html) is right on the money.

By the way, I don't think Blair's proposals are 100% wrong, there is some good stuff in there too, but they are largely poorly thought-through knee-jerk crowd-pleasers.

I think what Tony Blair ought to have said is something like ,

" Over the past eight years , my government has been very lax , indeed , in the matter of immigration. Sometimes it has been chaotic and there are now about half a million illegal immigrants in this country and we don't really know where they are or who they are .
In addition , we have let some Mosque leaders spout venom and hatred and it's quite possible that these types of people influenced the young men who carried out the bombings on July , the seventh.
To be absolutely fair , the Conservatives too were almost as bad as we have been.
However , as the Head of the Met. Police has said , "better late than never ".
I am extremely sorry not to have been stronger in the past and listened to advice from all quarters , regarding this situation , especially when I knew that Britain was a likely target for the bombers. I took far too much notice of my "Islington " advisors , the Guardian and the B.B.C.......oh and the good lady wife . Thank you and have a nice day . Mind how you go ! "

He might have got a few Brownie Points for honesty , if nothing else !

Originally posted by DanSumption
I don't deny any of that, bet I don't think it's particularly relevant to what I was saying.

I'm not opposed to what Blair is doing for "bleeding heart" "do-gooding" "human rights" reason or whatever other handy labels anyone fancies coming up with, I'm opposed to what he's doing because I don't like seeing people bombed, just as I was opposed to the Iraq war because I don't like seeing people bombed.

Driving the IRA further underground did not play a role in ultimately defeating the IRA. It generated sympathy for the organisation in some quarters which led to a ten-year intensification of their bombing campaigns, which only ended when the government started to tackle some of the issues which drove people to support the IRA.

Once again, the only press commentator I've found speaking plainly, clearly and simply on this matter is al-Qaeda expert Jason Burke. His article seven ways to stop the terror (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1544140,00.html) is right on the money.

By the way, I don't think Blair's proposals are 100% wrong, there is some good stuff in there too, but they are largely poorly thought-through knee-jerk crowd-pleasers.


Dan,

We will have to disagree about relevancy. In my view what I said was directly relevant to the points you made. I think there is a causal link between the unhindered advocacy of mass terror (including the suicide bombing of tube stations) and the events of July. It is time to shut these people up (and indeed lock them up) by categorising their activities as criminal acts subject to condign punishment (including imprisonment, deportation and removal of citizenship).

As for Burke's article, I think it is a good example of why I don't read the Observer. The points he makes are in my view an unconvincing mixture of superficial, banal, bleedin' obvious and unworkable 'solutions'. The stance this 'expert' is taking (its remarkable how a crisis can throw up so many instant experts and pundits, offering such contradictory advice) is that hard tough measures won't work because as in previous conflicts we need to show our enemy some understanding and engage with them and also deal with the underlying causes. How appealing this is to Observer readers, who have a tendency to baulk at harsh measures for anything and who are likely to oppose the introduction of tough legislation on the grounds that it conflicts with human rights. I agree with Burke's concluding points though when he says:

'None of these measures (he is referring to the measures he is advocating) will end the threat of terrorism'

I agree with him there.

and

'but central to our efforts must remain a simple fact: violent Islamic militancy is not inevitable'.

I agree with him there also, but for very different reasons. I think there is a very good chance the July events would not have happened had tough measures against islamo-fascism been introduced years ago (measures which would have probably been opposed tooth and nail by Observer (and Guardian) readers.

The points you make about the IRA do not in my view accord with the facts. The measures the government introduced against the IRA served to de-legitimise the explicit advocacy and justification of violence, serving to criminalise it. As I mentioned earlier, there are good grounds for thinking that this encouraged a bifurcation between the IRA's political and military operations, with the former becoming ever more important. It was made clear to the IRA that if they wanted dialogue they would have to eschew violence and the advocacy of violence (i.e. of physical force republicanism). The case of the IRA is however quite different from that of islamo-fascism, in that the IRA had a clear rational objective (however much you might disagree with it, and however repugnant the means used to pursue this objective).

Burke is not an "instant expert" - I don't know a lot about his background, but he has been living and travelling in Muslim countries for at least 15 years, and spends most of his time talking to regular Muslims, so he probably has a better idea of their mindset than you do. He has also written the most highly acclaimed book on al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism.

Two main points from his article stand out. Firstly, the people who commited these acts were not, as the venacular would have it, insane. They hold a world-view which is abhorrent to us, but it is one that we can and must understand if we are to get to grips with what's happening and try to tackle it.

Second is that it is emphatically not evil or misguided to try to understand where these people are coming from. There is a huge difference between understanding and sympathising, one which most of the right-wing press are blind to.

Tony Blair needs to be tough on terrorism, and tough on the causes of terrorism. Instead, he seems to be standing with his fingers in his ears shouting "NA NA NA NOT LISTENING NOT LISTENING I CAN'T HEAR YOU NOT LISTENING GO AWAY I'M NOT LISTENING".

Dan's right. Burke's hardly an Observer/Guardian lackey - he's spent a great deal of time in the Middle East and is acknowledged in his field as being extremely knowledgable.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Burke is not an "instant expert" - I don't know a lot about his background, but he has been living and travelling in Muslim countries for at least 15 years, and spends most of his time talking to regular Muslims, so he probably has a better idea of their mindset than you do. He has also written the most highly acclaimed book on al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism.

Two main points from his article stand out. Firstly, the people who commited these acts were not, as the venacular would have it, insane. They hold a world-view which is abhorrent to us, but it is one that we can and must understand if we are to get to grips with what's happening and try to tackle it.

Second is that it is emphatically not evil or misguided to try to understand where these people are coming from. There is a huge difference between understanding and sympathising, one which most of the right-wing press are blind to.

Tony Blair needs to be tough on terrorism, and tough on the causes of terrorism. Instead, he seems to be standing with his fingers in his ears shouting "NA NA NA NOT LISTENING NOT LISTENING I CAN'T HEAR YOU NOT LISTENING GO AWAY I'M NOT LISTENING".

The point i was really making about Burke is that the current crisis has thrown up a galaxy of media pundits on al Qaeda and on islamic fanaticism. Go for example to any large bookshop in the US and you will find shelves full of books on these subjects, written by 'experts' of one kind or another. But they frequently proffer very different analyses and prescriptions. Take for example Amir Tahiri who writes on these subjects for The Times. His views and recommendations are very different from those of Burke.

I have never argued that understanding and sympathising are one and the same. You can understand someone perfectly well without in any way liking or sanctioning his or her views or behaviour.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The point i was really making about Burke is that the current crisis has thrown up a galaxy of media pundits on al Qaeda and on islamic fanaticism. Go for example to any large bookshop in the US and you will find shelves full of books on these subjects, written by 'experts' of one kind or another. But they frequently proffer very different analyses and prescriptions. Take for example Amir Tahiri who writes on these subjects for The Times. His views and recommendations are very different from those of Burke.
Yes, and I was actually very reluctant to put those words "al-Qaeda expert" in my original post because they leave a nasty taste, and Burke does not call himself this and is not billed as this. I only mentioned it because I wanted to make it clear that he was not "just another Observer columnist" and actually knows a good deal about this subject, although your first reply indicates that my ploy didn't work.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I have never argued that understanding and sympathising are one and the same. You can understand someone perfectly well without in any way liking or sanctioning his or her views or behaviour.
That's good, but unfortunately a great deal of the right wing press, Bush and his supporters, and increasingly Blair too, do seem to take this view. Somebody just has to begin explaining the kind of thinking that goes into terrorist acts like the recent bombings, and they are instantly branded as bad as the terrorists, or as apologists.