« Michael Gove: The battle of ideas is being fought on Cameron's terms | Main | Quentin Davies: gone and forgotten »

Comments

Re George Osbourne, how about if he started to master his present Finance brief first?

Mr Hague is quite correct to highlight that Iraq is not the cause of Islamic terrorism.

But whence comes the politician who will agree with the Hassan Butt - a practising Muslim and ex-member of Al-Muhajiroun - who writes in today's Observer:

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Hmm...

William Hague hit on one of my bugbears when he said Brown was not capable of delivering real change. Am I alone in thinking we have the wrong emphasis here?

Is it change the country needs? Or is it a party that can and will fix the host problems Labour is storing up? Do voters really want to hear platitudes about 'change' rather than hearing plans for how we can repair the damage inflicted on this country and improve the people's lot in life?

"Towards the end of the interview Mr Hague rejected calls from Edward Leigh for a greater emphasis on issues like tax, deregulation, stronger immigration controls and strong defence".

And he never even bothered to mention the EU.
So, it's goodbye then to the oddly and whimsically named Conservative Party?
If Hague is the best the Tories can do - forget it. Vote for any party except those that now dominate Parliament.
Cameron wants a referendum on the EU - what for precisely? Crocodile tears. The consenual MSP prefer lying in the warm bath of the EU (whilst failing to notice that they have slit their wrists). Change? Wise up. There isn't going to be any change

Posted by: Cllr Tony Sharp | July 01, 2007 at 13:32

So very true

Iraq hasnt contributed to Islamic terrorism? What planet is he on?

Illegally invading Iraq on a lie is the single biggest foreign policy disaster, and criminal act, by any government since Suez and our support for it is an utter disgrace.

Illegally invading Iraq on a lie is the single biggest foreign policy disaster, and criminal act, by any government since Suez and our support for it is an utter disgrace

Suez was not a criminal act any more than The Falkands was - Nasser STOLE our property which Disraeli had purchased for us.

The biggest single foreign policy disaster since 1956 was signing The Treaty of Rome

While Iraq was not necessarily a good idea, those, especially on the right, who allow it to excuse the murderous and racist ideology of Al Qaeda and its allies are promoting the ideology of terror and in particular of us having made an attack on Islam and Muslims, rather than a sacrilegious and barbaric President of Iraq who was one of the least religious people in the Middle East.

The idea that attacking the secular Iraqi government of Hussein has anything to do with Pakistani Muslims in Britain is just nonsense.

It is very foolish to support the terrorists in their claim that we attacked Islam when we invaded Iraq.

Eventually the party is going to have to face up to Europe and spell out with clarity and precision what its policy is. Simply to call for a referendum is not enough, for how can one judge such a call when it is detached from context?

One suspects that there is a growing realisation that the policy of seeking to repatriate powers is wholly unrealistic (as in "it's never going to happen")and that the alternatives are deemed too unpalatable to mention.

The issue is not going to go away. Why are we so frightened of it?: the polls suggest that the majority of the electorate is hostile to Le Grand Projet so why not tap into that? Some carefully considered private polling ought to enable the party to finesse its policy so as to match the electorate's views. Europhiliacs are thin on the ground since Davies legged it and the only prominent ones are yesterday's men (Patten, Clarke, Heseltine) and therefore a disciplined party can present a united face on this issue. It was division on Europe not the policy which offended the electorate. So why the silence?

The biggest issue of the moment is Brown's decision to break his pledge - and NOT to hold a referendum on the EU constitution.

Why did Osborne & Hague both fail today to hammer Brown for this duplicity?

When Brown became PM he vacated the post of Leader of the Opposition. Who is going to do this job now?

"The attacks of 9/11 happened before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, he noted."

I thought that was in the USA. It is the British terror wave that is reffered to.

William Hague wake up.

The very first thing any sane statesman confronted with the muslim terrorist threat should do is to stop the threat growing and that means banning any further muslims coming to the Uk for residence and getting rid of all the illegals for a start.Otherwise we are just sleepwalking to civil war.

There were of course terrorist incidents by Al Qaeda before 9/11 - indeed a US warship was sunk and embassy buildings were blown up and this was what led to Bill Clinton ordering direct targeting of Al Qaeda training facilities in Afghanistan in 1998 through Air Strikes.

Why do India, Bangladesh, Pakistan suffer so much Islamist terrorism and bombings ? I don't recall them being in Iraq....and Pakistan's ISI trained Taleban and some of our bombers......

They just have Anti-Social Personality Disorder and are not rational. Why we always impose this Western mental straitjacket on others and seek rationality in irrational acts I do not know, a failure of cultural understanding I think

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." Jonathan Swift

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

Never forget Osama bin Laden was financed by the USA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda should have remained a USA problem. Al Qaeda were also believed to have supported the KLA. Blair bombed Belgrade on their behalf?
The moral is not to get into fights in which the origins are not understood.

Fred: the attacks could just as easily be a response to giving Rushdie a knighthood.

You need to wake up to the fact that Islamists want us on our kness and not just out of Iraq.

Hague was very foolish to say that. At the moment we simply don't know the prime motivation of these terrorists, but I'll wager that the Iraq War has a great deal to do with it.

Mr Osborne may be given new powers over party campaigns and General Election plans

Sounds like we're sunk, then.

Hague was very foolish to say that. At the moment we simply don't know the prime motivation of these terrorists, but I'll wager that the Iraq War has a great deal to do with it.
The UK can't allow it's international & defence policies to be dictated by groups of terrorists.

Why do India, Bangladesh, Pakistan suffer so much Islamist terrorism and bombings ? I don't recall them being in Iraq
A force of Pakistani troops were in Iraq keeping the peace, but they were already being attacked and have been subject to terrorist attacks for a number of years previously. General Mushareff was already an Al Qaeda target.

Mark Malloch Brown will lead the Foreign Office in an multilateralist direction. Brown's Labour may not run away from Iraq but they'll do nothing more. Lord MMB would resign if they did. Britain has joined Old Europe in the war on terror.

We have a muslim population of which many sympathise with and understand the motives of terrorists even if few will actually do anything positive as you would expect. But 1500 immigrants are coming into the UK every day of which a good number are muslims. A prudent government would take every step to avoid the terror problem getting any bigger by stopping the sympathetic portion of the population getting any bigger and that means-no more muslims.
Those who disagree should tell us the reasons why we should risk our national safety and future.

A prudent government would take every step to avoid the terror problem getting any bigger by stopping the sympathetic portion of the population getting any bigger and that means-no more muslims.

We live in a liberal democracy. It's not for anyone to explain why we shouldn’t restrict rights here, but for those who want to curtail our rights to make their case.

You might talk about better border security, about curtailing illegal immigration, before you turn to thinking that saying "no more muslims" would make us any safer. Not only would your proposal damage British society by alienating the many moderate muslims who already live peaceful and productive lives here as an integral part of our community (yes, community singular!), do you really think it would make Islamic extremists hate us less, or want to attack us any less? No.

Quite aside from the fact that you can’t identify muslims by their skin colour (if I were to convert to radical Islam tomorrow and become militant, how would you know?), One point that Brown was quite right about in his interview today is that there is an issue about ensuring community cohesion in the UK alongside the immediate and necessary security responses. I can’t help thinking that something as unsubtle as your proposal would endanger that. Besides, if we stop accepting more than one idea, isn’t that exactly what the terrorists want?

The Earls of Northumberland were given vast estates just to keep the Scots out. We lost millions of men in two world wars to keep the Germans out. Some Muslims are invasion minded and the Government is too slow to recognise that. We also have a lot of very good Muslim teachers in our schools and many are putting across the Muslim view, particularly with regard to Israel. The Labour Party has nurtured a great problem.

If national security calls for it of course we should 'discriminate' as we see fit.

However the main priority is to phase out mass immigration altogether. Many of us have warned for years that we were stoking up trouble for ourselves and so it has turned out.

I haven't read the article but I believe that Minette Marrin has suggested we should permit 'European' (I presume she means ethnic European) immigration only.

I have always believes that so-called 'diversity' is a very bad idea. It destroys the cohesion of the nation.

We dont live in a liberal democracy-that is BBC speak.Nor do we live in an illiberal or conservative democracy ,however they may differ from liberal democracies. We live in a constitutional monarchy. At present that constitution provides for a parliament elected by universal franchise somewhat unequally between the four nations of the UK.
Precisely what rights do incoming migrants have to demand!Why should moderate muslims suddenly turn into jihadi supporters if we change our immigration p[olicy and why should that matter? Do they have a veto over any change in policy by threatening to go jihadi?
The answer to your question is that it would not make the slightest difference to the attitude of the jihadists if we stopped enlarging the muslim population but it would help us because they simply would not be here.

We live in a constitutional monarchy.

Yes, but that didn't make my point as well against the likes of you.

Why should moderate muslims suddenly turn into jihadi supporters if we change our immigration p[olicy and why should that matter?

Calm down and grow up. Of course they're not likely to. But if we need their support in rooting out militancy among extremist elements that are already here, equally you could ask what is to be gained by alienating them.

Do they have a veto over any change in policy by threatening to go jihadi?

Of course not, Nor should threats from terrorist groups have a veto over foreign policy. I'm also not aware that any such threat has been made, and I certainly didn't express any such in my post.

it would not make the slightest difference to the attitude of the jihadists if we stopped enlarging the muslim population but it would help us because they simply would not be here.

I have a feeling that given the current Government's previous abysmal performance on border control that your policy would make little difference unless we address that first. That should then be aimed as strongly as possible at the people that pose a genuine threat to us.

Someone once said that there was a difference between fundamentalists and militants. A fundamentalist is someone who believes he is right, you are wrong, and you are going to hell. The militant, on the other hand, believes that he is right, you are wrong, and he has a duty to send you to hell. The latter is a criminal, and I want to keep him out of Britain. or alternatively see him charged, tried in a court of law and imprisoned or deported.

We live in a pluralist society. That means we accept more than one idea. That's what absolutely kills the people who are attacking us. And it's not going to be helped by refusing entry to people who just happen to have the same skin colour as a group of criminals. Don't you agree?

And it's not going to be helped by refusing entry to people who just happen to have the same skin colour as a group of criminals. Don't you agree?

Now you know that immigration control does not operate on skin colour, but could you explain what principles do lie behind our border controls ?

It seems there is an automatic right of entry to this country and a limited right of deportation.

Since this is the policy acceptable to the opinion-formers in Britain why not let events take their natural course ? If one day there is a 9/11 type spectacular we can see how the public reacts....why sustain this myth that Britain is in control of its borders, or that its police do anything more than pursue lucky breaks. The capacity for self-delusion in this country is unlimited.

Luck is what keeps terrorism from being effective, nothing else. An ambulanceman in London can have a widespread impact where MI5 had little - and we now find our NHS has been hiring doctors with a predisposition towards violence....no doubt their records were carefully checked through Capita

Nothing much will happen until one of these bombers gets lucky and blows up politicians or lawyers or bankers....otherwise it will continue to be smoke-and-mirrors from Whitehall and windy rhetoric from Westminster

We live in a pluralist society. That means we accept more than one idea. That's what absolutely kills the people who are attacking us.

Bullsh*t! Try spouting this pious democrobabble drivel next time one of these lunatics tries to blow you apart.

The only thing that will absolutely 'kill the people who are attacking us' is hot lead.

Added to which we need an end to 'anti-racist' political correctness and a virtual end to immigration.

Islamofascist terrorism may well bring about both these desirable consequences.

It seems there is an automatic right of entry to this country and a limited right of deportation.

The second part of that seems to be the bigger problem.

We as a country, fail to deport those who have shown that they do not wish to respect the laws of the land, and even give citizenship to convicted criminals. One of the failed London Bombers, was a naturalised citizen who recieved his papers after commiting serious crimes. There are a number of reasons for it, (eg HRA, political correctness, EU rules) but there is nothing remotely rational about it.

Immigrants can only play an overall positive role, if the obvious undesirables among them are either kept out or thrown out. We have enough home grown low life as it is, we don't need foriegn mafia or terrorists.

I believe in "easy come, easy go", but the former depends on the latter.

There are no conventions that force us to take anyone entering the country, but we do have conventions that force us to keep them.....it is therefore important to control entry since you cannot deport

There needs to be a compulsory national biometric database - anyone not on it would be committing a criminal offence so long as they remained not on it, anyone whose identity could not be confirmed could be detained indefinitely until their identity could be confirmed, anyone considered dangerous could be detained until it was considered safe to release them. There needs to be internment, introduction of secret tribunals to replace Jury Trials, reintroduction of execution and torture of convicts on the basis of mandatory sentencing, no one could expect to be released at the end of their sentence if they received a fixed term sentence that was not capital or life - release would have to be approved by a prison panel on the basis that the person was considered to be repentant and no longer posed a risk to society otherwise regardless of the offence they could be held until death.

Prison cells should be made smaller and prison regimes generally harsher.

So far as dealing with suspected terrorists goes, France seems to have the right idea - which is that if someone is considered a threat by security services they can be interned indefinitely without trial if need be - there has been one terrorist suspect held without trial for more than 10 years now.

Dangerous devious people need to have rigid tough measures to deal with them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker