Saturday, December 08, 2001
2:51 pm
Blunkett spells it out
According to David Blunkett:
That [security service] information tells us that because of our alliance – quite rightly – with the United States and because of our vulnerability we are at risk.
So the one "national interest" argument for British participation in this adventure - that terrorism is a risk to us - is negated as we are actually at more risk than if we hadn't taken part. I don't think that our rulers really mind as they are not going to be at risk from WTC type attrocities, its going to be Joe Public.
One should not be churlish and thanks must go to David Blunkett for effortlessly confirming the main charge against the British involvement.
More and more feedback
I've got a nice e-mail on my Afghan coverage:
Keep up writing your ed columns! We need more critical (and at times dissenting) voices in this country (US). The main press is pretty opportunistic accepting too easily "feed" from the officialdom and their biased information channels. Keep it up!
This from a British correspondant, on the Mazar article:
I agree with you that there was a massacre, probably with our connivance - but I disagree that, although deeply unpleasant, not to
say inhuman, it was a bad thing. To kill the most warlike & dedicated of one's opponents is an ancient principle of warfare: the alternative is not to spare them to fight another day - which they inevitably will - but to enlist them on one's own side, which, in the case of al-Qa'eda shock troops, I should imagine to be impossible. It is both decent & prudent to take prisoners when you are fighting a country which you hope & expect, once the war has ended, to be on peaceful terms with again; but we neither hope nor expect ever to be on peaceful terms with al-Qa'eda, so their warriors are fair game. The vaunted Arab "street" has fewer terrors than al-Qa'eda,
& I do not see much sign of the massacre's becoming a cause celebre anyway, not least because a little local difficulty in "Palestine" has supervened.
I must hasten to say that I do not know whether this was a massacre, I just don't think that the official version adds up.
According to David Blunkett:
That [security service] information tells us that because of our alliance – quite rightly – with the United States and because of our vulnerability we are at risk.
So the one "national interest" argument for British participation in this adventure - that terrorism is a risk to us - is negated as we are actually at more risk than if we hadn't taken part. I don't think that our rulers really mind as they are not going to be at risk from WTC type attrocities, its going to be Joe Public.
One should not be churlish and thanks must go to David Blunkett for effortlessly confirming the main charge against the British involvement.
More and more feedback
I've got a nice e-mail on my Afghan coverage:
Keep up writing your ed columns! We need more critical (and at times dissenting) voices in this country (US). The main press is pretty opportunistic accepting too easily "feed" from the officialdom and their biased information channels. Keep it up!
This from a British correspondant, on the Mazar article:
I agree with you that there was a massacre, probably with our connivance - but I disagree that, although deeply unpleasant, not to
say inhuman, it was a bad thing. To kill the most warlike & dedicated of one's opponents is an ancient principle of warfare: the alternative is not to spare them to fight another day - which they inevitably will - but to enlist them on one's own side, which, in the case of al-Qa'eda shock troops, I should imagine to be impossible. It is both decent & prudent to take prisoners when you are fighting a country which you hope & expect, once the war has ended, to be on peaceful terms with again; but we neither hope nor expect ever to be on peaceful terms with al-Qa'eda, so their warriors are fair game. The vaunted Arab "street" has fewer terrors than al-Qa'eda,
& I do not see much sign of the massacre's becoming a cause celebre anyway, not least because a little local difficulty in "Palestine" has supervened.
I must hasten to say that I do not know whether this was a massacre, I just don't think that the official version adds up.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2001
(202)
-
▼
December
(71)
- Happy New Year And now my new year question, does...
- Margolis caught out Eric Margolis has just penned...
- Free Republic Feedback OK some feedback from Free...
- Who said this? Indeed, because we share the euro ...
- Bennett's Petard I've been directed (by Iain Mur...
- India and Pakistan Redux Another point on India a...
- Today's article Little feedback (alright no feedb...
- The Guardian makes sense - shock The article that...
- Another one James Alexander McLintock is being he...
- No nonsense or too boring for words? Any comments...
- What a wag George Fernandes the Indian defence mi...
- Iain Murray has highlighted an article in the Time...
- More evidence that Charles Kennedy is doing Iain D...
- With this India-Pakistan standoff still inching ah...
- There they go again Is there anything good about ...
- Will this be the next crusade? Sam Francis starts...
- Appeasers? Lest there be any doubt where the gove...
- Shock. Terrorism at home Does Welfare Cause Terr...
- How to work my links I have finally got the links...
- Video Nasty Bin Laden's latest video has been por...
- EUphobia The EU have put out a list of groups the...
- Scared of logic To those few of you who have been...
- Feedack: This from an irate reader: Thanks for t...
- I know it's Christmas, but before I forget I've be...
- Now I find it is thanks due to Brian Linse for pay...
- A great piece from Matthew Parris, who lampoons fa...
- They don't like it up 'em The Yanks over at Free ...
- Gee, thanks. A real Goldstein paid for my web l...
- I suppose its fame of a sort. I've been positione...
- Thank You To whoever removed the advertising from...
- This is more or less what I sent out to the subscr...
- Thank you to Natalie Solent for linking to me as h...
- I wonder what's going to happen over this little d...
- Euro Question Why does the punditocracy assume th...
- What is the truth about this bombed convoy? If it...
- A quick trip over to the Conservative Friends of I...
- As a service to all American supporters of Sinn Fe...
- I won the argument. The Counterfeit conservatives...
- Another Blog mention, this time from the American ...
- The House of Lord’s debate on Afghanistan is worth...
- Now we need an alliance with Russia. No matter th...
- Some speculation that America was planning to depo...
- Something on the roots of Islamic anger. Says tha...
- Fantastic piece, if two months old, from Justin Ra...
- Last week's article has sparked off a wide ranging...
- A revolt This is news, an Early Day Motion in the...
- What are they playing at? Now they're bugging dis...
- Tora Bora's fallen (they say) and Al Qaeda's been ...
- Praise to the BBC I don't usually say that the BB...
- Doubts on the video Apart from the first point, I...
- Americans 'covered up massacre of 280 Taliban': B...
- Will it get banned this time? More than a year ag...
- Excellent Richard Littlejohn piece in The Sun: ON...
- Well, it started, some are doubting the authentici...
- Weirdo Roundup Is this guy for real? TODAY'S LET...
- Birds of a White Feather I know I shouldn't be lo...
- After all the false starts, the Telegraph finally ...
- So, UK Mortgages are the cheapest in europe. Ther...
- Big Words From The Sun TONY Blair was last nigh...
- Remember when? Its not instant feedback, but its ...
- Around the Web An old Free Life Commentary from S...
- Happenings in BlogLand For daring to question the...
- That was fast It was a mere matter of hours ago t...
- Recomendation I've been recommended by Natalie So...
- Such an easy war, this. Go in defeat the Taliban,...
- Guess what folded? I never direct you to the Lib ...
- Black Boxes. Have any of the black boxes become p...
- Why oh Why? That stalwart MP Paul Marsden is a to...
- Blunkett spells it out According to David Blunket...
- Egg on face time Those eighty prisoners, were the...
- Why am I not surprised? The BBC don't like the Sw...
-
▼
December
(71)
0 comments:
Post a Comment