Blair disputes Bush's global tactics (BBC BARFS after Tony gets it right about Islamic Threat)

BBC ^ | August 2, 2006 | Paul Reynolds

[sergey1973]

Tony Blair's speech in Los Angeles about the "global fight" against "reactionary Islam" appears to represent a break with the tactics adopted by President Bush and the American neoconservatives in the "war on terror".

Mr Blair's speech contained tough words for Iran and Syria

It was also a rallying cry to "moderate Islam" to assert itself.

He was not withdrawing from the battle. After all, Britain is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and is supporting Israel against Hezbollah.

But he did not mention the phrase "war on terror" at all and seemed to be trying to change the language as well as the nature of the struggle.

"We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st Century, about global values.

"We will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world."

[MNJohnnie]

BBC-Bombastic BS Constantly

[sergey1973]

Islam/Global Jihad/Israel/Middle East PING !

[sergey1973]

Yep--whenever Politician speaks with common sense, BBC BARF team is expressing concerns -:))))

[Canard]

Duplicate thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676487/posts

[sergey1973]

Strange--I couldn't find the duplicate in the search -:)))

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The article does seem rather biased.

[sergey1973]

What else would you expect from BBC--Biased BS Corporation -:))))

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The BBC sometimes posts some more neutral articles. This one is more taking-a-side-ish, though.

[Joan Kerrey]

But he did not mention the phrase "war on terror" at all and seemed to be trying to change the language as well as the nature of the struggle.

"war on terror" needs to be changed. Terror is a tactic.
It should be "war on Islamofascism" If feathers are ruffled then so be it.

[MikeA]

So Blair's semantics indicate a rift with Bush? Man, these media pukes will grasp at ANYTHING! If anything, Blair's words are better than Bush's, more aggressive in pointing out the real enemy is militant or reactionary Islam, not all terrorists. As Rick Santorum said, this war should be called the war against Islamic fascism, not the war on terror. We're not fighting the IRA or Sri Lanken separatists. We're fighting as Blair says reactionaries among Islam. His words if anything are more true to the so-called "neo-conservative" philosophy than the bland and nebulous War on Terror.

[MNJohnnie]

Must just be my bad luck to keep stumble on the talking points one. But at least their are not nearly as bad as the French media

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The French media probably would be bad. Would you happen to know of any English language ones, by the way?

[MNJohnnie]

I see a lot of AFP article on Yahoo. Don't know if they have an English Lang channel. Just remember CSPAN ran foreign media broadcasts a lot right after 9-11 and the ones that stuck out in my memory as being particularly leftist propaganda hit pieces were done by BBC and the French.

Basically the BBC piece was a complete suck up to the Arabs. It basically called Bush a modern Crusader King leading a new crusade against the Arabs despite all the great things the Arabs had done way back when (Preserving all this old Roman and Greek history, Algebra etc) This was broadcast like within the 1st 2 weeks after 9-11!

[Canard]

"Blair's words are better than Bush's, more aggressive in pointing out the real enemy is militant or reactionary Islam, not all terrorists"

Um, I think you're projecting. Blair has never said anything along these lines and I wouldn't expect him to.

[MikeA]

He said that in the speech. Did you not see that in the article above?

[humint]

ARTICLE: He did not however address in detail the contradiction that some might see in this speech. How do you extend the values of moderation by pursuing war, as in Iraq, which might in itself increase the level of extremism in response?

No contradiction at all... Here's the step by step for the uninitiated:

1. Depose the dictator
2. Encourage all moderates to participate democratically
3. Enforce the rule of law --- [In other words, kill the extremists]
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until extremist responses end

This is a simple four step recipe to extend the values of moderation… Be patient though --- history suggests this recipe needs plenty of time and a lot of blood. As unappetizing as that may sound, it’s far more appealing than dictatorship.

[Canard]

He defines the enemy in the current conflict as so. I don't think that he would add the "not all terrorists" that you added. And he certainly wouldn't say "We're not fighting the IRA" as you did, given our countries recent experience with doing just that. Blair specifically draws a paralell in the speach between terrorist acts in "Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Palestine" and British experiences in overcoming similar in Northern Ireland.