Herald – UK ‘allowed’ terror groups to act with impunity: John Reid, defence secretary, last night defended the government’s handling of the terrorist menace. “The terrorists want to kill anyone who stands in the way of their perverse ideology,” he said.
“So when this report says that we have made ourselves more of a target because of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and our efforts to tackle al Qaeda, what alternative is it proposing? That we should stand back while others take on the terrorists? I do not think this is what the British public would want. So we make no apology for working with our international partners, including the US, on operations which we judge to be in the best interests of the UK and the world.”
Ah, so there’s no connection between Iraq and terrorism unless you wish to use terrorism as a justification for invading Iraq. Gotcha. Glad we cleared that up.
John Reid was at it again on Radio 4 this morning. If the words seem awfully familiar, it’s because it’s being read from the same dog-eared song sheet…
BBC – Iraq war support ‘put UK at risk’: But Mr Reid told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I do not accept, when the report says we have made ourselves more of a target because of involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and our efforts to tackle al-Qaeda, that there is another alternative which is easier and better. The terrorists will kill anyone who stands in the way of their own perverse ideology. And the idea that somehow by running away from the school bully, then the bully will not come after you is a thesis that is known to be completely untrue by every kid in the playground and it is also refuted by every piece of historical evidence that we have. Terrorism goes way back to the late 1980s and the early 1990s.”
Reid seems to want it both ways. Terrorism existed before the invasion of Iraq, therefore the invasion of Iraq has no influence on terrorism (a line the government has been peddling since late afternoon on the 7th of July). But the invasion of Iraq is part of the fight against terrorism.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a compromised government. They cannot accept the truth, because it will lead to admissions that are politically disastrous. Therefore, they cannot fight this threat efficiently. They have to dodge around phantom players of their own invention *and* play the ball at the same time.
Their past conduct not only in Iraq but in their ‘war’ on terror has compromised or threatened votes on even the most basic domestic legislation… how can they claim it has no influence on future votes… votes on such things as new laws that they claim will help us to fight terrorists?
While we’re on the subject, let’s look at one of those new laws… the one that targets “indirect incitement to commit terrorist acts”.
Now, if you wanted to capture the hearts and minds of an audience and convince them that it might be a good idea to strap a bomb on or maybe look the other way while naughty concoctions were cooked up in their kitchen, what ammunition would you use?
Hold on there, now… you can’t include anything that happened in Iraq (torture, napalm, etc.). That doesn’t count. Because the invasion of Iraq has no influence on terrorism.
Therefore, anybody who preaches hatred but sticks to subjects such as Fallujah or Abu Ghraib must be innocent. Because our role in Iraq does not contribute to the terrorist threat.
And anybody who uses experience they gained in the terrorist playground we created in Iraq (to raise funds, recruit follows or commit a terrorist act) must also be innocent. Because our role in Iraq does not contribute to the terrorist threat.
And anybody who uses actual weapons and explosives that were set free by the conflict? Sorry, but they’re innocent, too. Because our role in Iraq does not contribute to the terrorist threat.
You can’t argue with logic.
