Monday, September 11, 2006

Five Years On

It is five years since the world stood still. Anyone old enough to remember, will remember the day the towers fell. My thoughts and sympathies are with those who lost a loved one that day. Unfortunately, the lessons of 9/11 have not been learnt.

The opportunity was to turn the other cheek. To promote peace where there is war, understanding where there is intolerance, moderation where there is extremism. The invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban from power was perfectly just, and necessary to eliminate, or at least destablise, the threat.

But what, truly, have we done to forge links with the Islamic world? The majority of Islamic nations have condemned the attacks in the United States, Spain, the United Kingdom and other nations. But are the people of such nations any more interested, any more understanding of the West? Or are we still perceived as the Great Satan?

I fear the latter is true. Today is not a time for weaponry and warfare; today is a time to remember. But tomorrow, the threat will be as real, as ill-controlled, as it was yesterday...as it was five years ago.

The pen is mightier than the sword. A war of words, not of bullets, will destroy the warped souls who wish to wreak catastrophe on us. They will fail, because the values and principles of Western life, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are values that are wanted by every man, woman and child the world over.

But how many innocents will die before we win the War on Terror? How many soliders, how many Arabs, how many civilians of the West? We must face this situation with a new understanding. If we fight with fire, they shall respond with it. The more we kill innocent Muslims, the more are converted to radicalism.

The threat will always exist, will always try to gain support. But imperialism, bigotry and propaganda can only fuel more hatred. We must not undermine the principles we hold so dear. We must not concede to terrorism. We must not fail.

We owe it to the world.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Politricks in the Twenty First Century

And so another day draws to a close, and with it the careers of seven junior government ministers, resigned today in opposition to the Prime Minister. They are a junior defence minister, and six ministerial aides.

Frankly, they were unimportant postfillers. But the fact that members of the government have resigned is more than problematic for the government. It's not quite the Howe moment the anti-Labour lobby are looking for, but it is a good distance further down the slippery slope.

But why has this situation occured? Why has Tony Blair, first elected on one of the most convincing mandates in electoral history, suddenly lost so much support? The key issue is, of course, Iraq, and that I cannot argue with. There are many who morally disagree with the invasion of Iraq. I personally believe it justifiable, but there are many who do not like Blair's decision.

The problem is this: they are all fools. Let me elaborate.

The Conservative Party, known for its Atlanticist views, also supported the invasion. If the roles were swapped, a Tory government would, without doubt, join the United States in military occupation. Therefore, first mistake: the belief that it wasn't a wide consensus within politics and that the opposition would have done any better.

The second, and sadly worse problem, is that people have now tarnished Blair with the Iraq brush. Suddenly, all his politics - despite being relatively logical and easily better than those of any other party - are bad. Suddenly, every crisis is now his fault. Suddenly, he should go.

The truth of the matter is, we are witnessing that most annoying thing in politics: sheep-ery-ness-ism. To be a sheep implies there is someone leading you. Who is leading? The answer is worryingly clear: the media.

An interesting fact: the present BBC chief political correspondant is a former chairman of the Young Conservatives, and about as politically neutral as Vladimir Lenin. It shows, too. The media's obsession with ousting Blair - whose head they would love to see over their mantle - is what is causing this issue. I guarentee that if the media (who was opposed to the invasion of Iraq and thus sprang upon every opportunity to attack it) did not start with the whisperings of Blair leaving, or Brown coups, it wouldn't even be in the public's minds, and Blair would leave when he's comfortable, giving us a stable and orderly transition, which is supposedly what we all want.

I'm afraid, therefore, that it doesn't matter who the Prime Minister is, whether it's Blair, Brown or Cameron, or indeed which party is governing. As long as the media has the power to switch blind public opinion, we shall live in a fundamentally undemocratic, oligarchical nation where the press leaders truly rule, and all the politicians do is pander to them with photo opportunities and spin doctors.

Does the description in the above paragraph sound familiar? Break free of the lies, now. Research things for yourself, Blair isn't perfect, but he's a far better leader than people seem to think he is.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

The Issue with Islam

The country's first Muslim Miss England has accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of fuelling hostility towards Islam in the wake of the London bombings.
Hammasa Kohistani, 19, said government statements since last year's 7 July attacks had created a "negative image" of Muslims.


Interesting. Also, utter rubbish. We face a problem with Islam, here in the West. Partly, because Islam in its most orthodox components is entirely incompatable with Western culture and society. However, any religion that remains stationary and unrelentingly conservative is: Christianity in its pure doctrine is no more compatable than Islam.

The issue is whether the followers of said religion are prepared to update (conservatives would call it 'dilute') their faith. Those that aren't have ended up hijacking commercial airlines and committing acts of terrorism. Those that have, have adapted peacefully into British culture.

It is not true, and it is unfair to say, that all Muslims are at odds with the West. It is ignorant stereotyping to suggest that all Muslims support militaristic jihad, all Muslims oppose gender equality, all Muslims are against freedom of choice. We, in the West, have our part to play in acknowledging this, and our ignorance can only make the situation worse.

But comments from the first Miss England of the Islamic faith (I will not say 'Muslim Miss England', because she is English first, Muslim second) "that Tony Blair addressed Muslims in particular, telling them that they need to sort out the problem within" will do far more than make the situation worse, they shall destroy what fragile peace we have left with the Islamic world.

The implication of her comment is that Islamic extremism is somehow the responsibility of someone other than the Islamic community. Excuse me, but...WHAT. THE HELL.

This actually disgusts me. That a girl (young though she may be) in a position of influence (small though it may be) is actually loading responsibility from Muslims to someone else - namely Tony Blair - for the actions of people who are born, bred and die within their very community and faith.

Yes, the government, as the arbiter of justice, is responsible to ensure that Islamic extremism doesn't grow. But the buck stops not at the Christian Prime Minister, but at the Islamic community. Take a look at the phrases 'Islamic extremism' and 'Islamic community'. Tell me what you see in common?

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

The Reason for the Revolution

We live today in a world of conflict, confusion and corruption. A world where international corporations have more influence than scientists and artists, where governments can operate on a 'democratic mandate' simply by being elected every few years, where terrorists can hijack commercial airlines and kill thousands. A world where you cannot step outside your door at night for fear of attack, where paedophiles are placed in rehabilitation centres next to primary schools, where the rich continue to become richer and the poor remain stagnant.

What is the solution? How can you defend your country while retaining your freedom? How can you have a free press without bias? How can you have an efficient government without democracy?

The answer is simple: the society that we have created and fallen afoul of must be restructured, from top to bottom. Every single government agency is flawed in one way or another, every political party falls short of the required goals. We need, in short, a revolution. A social revolution, a cultural revolution, a political revolution. A revolution of the sort that has never been seen before.

Utopia is not impossible. Over time, we aim to enlighten the people of Britain, those with whom power should rest, to how this can be done.